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

Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

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

  • #16
    Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    You are correct. Jermaine talks to the refs a lot less this season.

    But that is not because he has "seen the light". It's because the NBA's new no B.S. policy (which I love).

    However over the past month or so he has started talking again. Nowhere near what he used to but every now & then.

    The refs. don't take it out on Foster, IMO.

    Was there a couple of bad calls last night? Sure but sometimes you'll just have that.

    Actually I think Jeff gets a lot of the benefit of the doubt calls simply because he is not a complainer.



    Was there a couple of bad calls last night? Sure but sometimes you'll just have that.

    Understatement of the year. .

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

      Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
      Seeing Jamaal Tinsley's history, I don't buy that. If Rick really wanted to, he could bench Tinsley. Just like he did when he first got here and made Tinsley earn his minutes. Just like he did last season when he decided we needed a player that was consistently healthy at point guard.
      The only thing is that Rick didn't bench Tinsley. Rick stated the starting job was open to whoever played best when training camp opened, and Kenny Anderson won the job. Tinsley then had a long stretch of excellent play and won the job back from Kenny. So I don't believe that Rick will bench Tinsley. I just don't see it happening, unfortunately.



      Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
      If you look at Jamaal Tinsley's career, you'll see that the most he ever shot the ball (before Carlisle) was 9.5 FG attempts per game, and that was his rookie season. They went down each year after that until the year of the brawl. That year he averaged 12 FGA's per game, and I think it's pretty obvious that we needed every bit of it. Then last season his attempts dipped way down. Now this season they're back up to 11 FGA's per game. A lot of times he has a size advantage over the opposing point guard. I have a hard time believing that it's Jamaal Tinsley's idea to try to exploit that so often, and that it looks so eerily similar to the way Bird and Carlisle used to use Mark Jackson. You should really go back and look at the video of the 2000 Playoffs and watch how we used Mark Jackson. Then, watch how we use Tinsley now.
      That's an interesting point about shot attempts per game. I do have to say this though...now he's averaging 12.5 FGA/game and in our 60-win season he averaged 7. That was his best year, imo, even though his numbers were more impressive in 04-05.




      Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
      I watched Mark Jackson's game very closely back then because I was probably his biggest fan. I admired every aspect of his game. Since the day we brought in Tinsley, I've believed that we saw Mark Jackson when we drafted him. Now, it's quite obvious that Carlisle see's the similarities too. This is why I don't agree with what you're saying about Tinsley shooting the ball against Carlisle's wishes. Tinsley might throw up shots that are questionable, but I don't believe for a second that it's all against Carlisle's wishes.

      Tinsley has the ability to see the floor like Mark. I used to say that he even played better than Mark when he was on his game. But all of that's becoming distant past because it's been a long time.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        You know how I feel about the Tinsley vs Rick situation. TPTB traded away AJ for a very specfic reason. AJ rightfully so believed he earned the starting job - and he did earn it fair and square - but Bird and Walsh didn't want a point guard controversy so they forced Rick to go with Tinsley. They knew he would not turn to Saras like he did with AJ. They knew DA couldn't play many minutes - so Rick was forced into playing Tinsley.

        OK, so as a coach such as Rick what do you do. You can't make trades - you want to keep your job. So you say to yourself OK I have to make it work with Tinsley - that is perhaps the key for me to keep my job. So Rick has done everything he can do this whole season to try and pump out as many wins as possible out of this team - and that means trying to get Tinsley to play his best - you have to make him happy or he sits 5 games with a sinus problem. So what do you do - you let him shoot- sure you try to coach him on good shots and bad shots. But you can't bench him you can't bring in a new guy - you have no choice - but let him shoot and just try to manage it as best as you can. And that is what Rick is doing I'm 99.9% sure of it.

        I hope that is clear

        Rick isn't showcasing Tinsley - that is insulting to Rick.

        It is like if you manage people at your job and there is one employee who is just trouble - but for whatever reason you know your boss isn't going to fire him - it is your job then to make it work.

        My point is Rick doesn't want Tinsley taking all those shots - but Rick is powerless to do anything about it. He doesn't have AJ to put in the game. So Rick tries to message the situation - yes I have to let Tinsley shoot the ball. I can't bench him for taking bad shots - because I have to win games to keep my job and TPTB traded away AJ and no one else can play the point guard.
        Thanks for the explanation. I finally understand your angle on it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

          Originally posted by Doug View Post
          As for movement, why should a player move and work to get an open shot when Tinsley's just going to chuck it up? Once I realize my PG has no interest in trying to get me the ball, I stop trying too. Players are human.

          There is little motivation to move, I agree. But I'm wondering how much of that is Rick's offense. Then again, they move as soon as Armstrong gets in the game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            There is little motivation to move, I agree. But I'm wondering how much of that is Rick's offense. Then again, they move as soon as Armstrong gets in the game.
            That's why I'm calling for Armstrong to start at PG. Energy and movement are what this team need right now.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

              At this point, even though it's not a long-term solution, I think it'd be worth a try. Maybe bring Armstrong in for the first 8 minutes and have him play 15 a night. He's shooting very poorly right now, and I'd be fine if he only took layups from here on out. But he brings energy and the other players play better when he's in.

              I've never seen a discrepancy like our 1st quarter play last as long as it has. It's been a problem all season, and it hasn't been fixed. The only two mainstays are Jermaine and Jamaal, and I'm sure we all agree that Jermaine isn't the problem.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                Yeah, aside from what Armstrong brings to the starting 5, I think Tinsley could be very good off the bench because we'd want him to score and look for his shot. Without Daniels we really have no firepower off the bench.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                  Mike is a solid team defender, IMO. He rotates fairly well & will do what he can to help double the post. Man on man coverage he tends to get beat laterally but I just don't see him as a gaping hole on the defense.
                  Dun and Murph are both weaker defenders than Al and Jack were. Yes, it's true even if the anti-Jack/Al crowd don't want to believe it.

                  DunDun is terrible manned up on guys first off. As much as DG has struggled in that regard he is still clearly stronger than Dun. Dun is unable to bump and keep up with most guards. Dun also has a bad habit of getting too far off his own guy when trying to help. You can't flat-out leave a guy on the weakside like that unless you are AI or Pippen.

                  Murph is just too slow, so much in fact that he makes Al look pretty fast.

                  Both make solid efforts which IMO disguises some of their problems. To a fan you see effort and scrambling and think "well he's part of the solution". However all that's no more helpful than a guy running hard on offense but missing all of his shots (hmmm, Dun before Denver comes to mind there too). Looks good but ulimately you aren't getting results from it.

                  Tins is the same as always. Actually that's not true. Tinsley has actually improved his defense in the last few weeks. He doesn't deny penetration of course, but he has been good at pulling some AI steal tricks himself, something he hadn't been doing. You know, sneaking baseline to steal entry passes from underneath, stuff like that. I'm not calling that good defense, just better than what he was doing a few months ago.

                  Foster's defense has looked much better the last month as well. He's been closing the high PnR pretty well (finally).

                  Even Danny's one on one defense is clicking a bit more. Still needs work though.

                  So to me the trade still falls as the main reason for the defensive struggles. And everybody ripped me a new one when I complained about it right at the time of the deal, like I just wanted to hate players or something.

                  I don't hate any of the new players, and I didn't like some aspects of Jack or Al either. I'm just calling the SKILLS as I see them. This team wanted to move Jack for PR reasons and got kicked in the defensive crotch to do so.


                  It is like if you manage people at your job and there is one employee who is just trouble - but for whatever reason you know your boss isn't going to fire him - it is your job then to make it work.
                  I don't know if that's what is going on with RC and Tinsley, but I totally agree with your logic behind why he would play him if he didn't want to. I'm also in the camp of laughing at "showcase" playing time. Ridiculous. Besides, some players are showcased better by not playing and letting memory and rep take over. Playing can remind scouts about a player's faults just as much as the positives.

                  HEALTH is the only reason you play a guy as a showcase, to prove he isn't injured if those are concerns. Ability and chemistry issues are things that other teams always think they can fix and thus require no showcasing.

                  Just look at Pacers fans who scout trade potential by seeing which player isn't getting to play with their current team. "X" is in the doghouse there, so they would probably be willing to trade him. If Tins hit the bench all the time plenty of teams would be calling since the signal would be "not part of our plans any more". Those teams know what Tins is about at this point.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                    I have to admit I was excited about this team during those few wins, but I was afraid that it was only temporary and it seems I might have been right. This same exact thing occured after the Ron-Peja trade. The team looked really good after both trades and there was good ball movement and off-the-ball movement. And then the team just gives up, even though its working, and go back to standing around.

                    Honestly I think the Pacers might just have conditioning problems. The trade reinvigorated the players and encouraged them to play hard, but in the end they just aren't cut out or aren't committed to playing that way for 82 games.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                      That's an interesting point about shot attempts per game. I do have to say this though...now he's averaging 12.5 FGA/game and in our 60-win season he averaged 7. That was his best year, imo, even though his numbers were more impressive in 04-05.
                      Ron and Reggie were getting FGAs on that team too.

                      Since FGA/game is tricky due to trades, guys hurt half the year, etc (which make the FGA total not equal to a sum of the individual FGAs per), let's go with PCT of total team FGAs and compare with 03-04.

                      JO 22.1% to 18.1% now
                      Ron 17.6% to Granger 12.2% now
                      Al 14.4% to 12.1% now (would have been close to 14.4 without the trade - add in Troy's 2.1)
                      Reggie 9.4% to Jack 10.7% (Dun bumps it 3% by taking over).

                      So basically what you see is that JO and Ron took more of the shots than JO and Granger do this year. The rest of the team is mostly a wash. AJ took more as the backup than Armstrong has been this year.

                      Then on top of this, the current team is shooting about 3 more per game.

                      Tins played only 52 games so his 5.9% is deceptive. His pace would have put him at 9.4% of the total for the year. He's up to 15.3% of the current total. Again that is coming at the expense of the top 2-3 FGA guys on the roster this year.

                      I think most people were happy to see JO and "Ron" (Jack in this case) shooting less of the team's shots than they did in 03-04. Also note that with the extra 3 FGAs per game the Pacers are also scoring 6 more points per game than the 03-04 team did.

                      I don't think Tins at 10-12 FGAs is really that bad. That doesn't make him a #2 option. OTOH, The 19.3 in FEB (5 games) is a very serious issue. That's counter-productive IMO.


                      Bear in mind that I find his shooting ABILITY very frustrating. If you get a layup or 3 foot bank shot, you HAVE TO make it. Tins has always made a habit of missing shots that you would expect a PG to make. That's far more frustrating to me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                        Despite how close his shots are, I think a lot of Tinsley's shots are actually pretty difficult. He makes them that way, though. I think it's easier to hit an open 18 footer than an off-balance leaning (or spinning) bank-shot near the basket. I still think he should hit way more than he does, but I don't think his looks are as high-quality as they appear.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                          I must say this, after the Tins, Quis, McLeod bar situation I brushed it under the table, but you have to wonder how long some of the players on this team who have dealt with Club Rio and now this situation will take it before they lose heart to compete with these guys on their side. Mainly I am talking about JO, Danny, and Foster. DA I guess too, but I don't think thats his style, but if you were one of the other three particularly JO who also dealt with the brawl and you have done everything you can to stay out of off the court trouble how long until JO will just say enough and want out of this situation just because hes tired of being another off the court headling because hes on the Pacers.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                            JT is just plain inconsistent. When he's in the mood, he's a top 10 PG in the league but when he's not he's just plain awful. Wouldn't bother challenge jump shots, lethargic, TO prone and the list goes on. I think he's a great BASKETBALL player, but as a point guard that would do the little things, the leadership, the enthusiasm and game control you can count him out.
                            http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Dun and Murph are both weaker defenders than Al and Jack were. Yes, it's true even if the anti-Jack/Al crowd don't want to believe it.

                              DunDun is terrible manned up on guys first off. As much as DG has struggled in that regard he is still clearly stronger than Dun. Dun is unable to bump and keep up with most guards. Dun also has a bad habit of getting too far off his own guy when trying to help. You can't flat-out leave a guy on the weakside like that unless you are AI or Pippen.

                              Murph is just too slow, so much in fact that he makes Al look pretty fast.

                              Both make solid efforts which IMO disguises some of their problems. To a fan you see effort and scrambling and think "well he's part of the solution". However all that's no more helpful than a guy running hard on offense but missing all of his shots (hmmm, Dun before Denver comes to mind there too). Looks good but ulimately you aren't getting results from it.

                              Tins is the same as always. Actually that's not true. Tinsley has actually improved his defense in the last few weeks. He doesn't deny penetration of course, but he has been good at pulling some AI steal tricks himself, something he hadn't been doing. You know, sneaking baseline to steal entry passes from underneath, stuff like that. I'm not calling that good defense, just better than what he was doing a few months ago.

                              Foster's defense has looked much better the last month as well. He's been closing the high PnR pretty well (finally).

                              Even Danny's one on one defense is clicking a bit more. Still needs work though.

                              So to me the trade still falls as the main reason for the defensive struggles. And everybody ripped me a new one when I complained about it right at the time of the deal, like I just wanted to hate players or something.

                              I don't hate any of the new players, and I didn't like some aspects of Jack or Al either. I'm just calling the SKILLS as I see them. This team wanted to move Jack for PR reasons and got kicked in the defensive crotch to do so.



                              I don't know if that's what is going on with RC and Tinsley, but I totally agree with your logic behind why he would play him if he didn't want to. I'm also in the camp of laughing at "showcase" playing time. Ridiculous. Besides, some players are showcased better by not playing and letting memory and rep take over. Playing can remind scouts about a player's faults just as much as the positives.

                              HEALTH is the only reason you play a guy as a showcase, to prove he isn't injured if those are concerns. Ability and chemistry issues are things that other teams always think they can fix and thus require no showcasing.

                              Just look at Pacers fans who scout trade potential by seeing which player isn't getting to play with their current team. "X" is in the doghouse there, so they would probably be willing to trade him. If Tins hit the bench all the time plenty of teams would be calling since the signal would be "not part of our plans any more". Those teams know what Tins is about at this point.


                              QUOTE:Yes, it's true even if the anti-Jack/Al crowd don't want to believe it.



                              QUOTE: This team wanted to move Jack for PR reasons and got kicked in the defensive crotch to do


                              Seth, I have been refraining from responding to your posts, but damn, can you give it a break. 90% of your post have some reference on how the Pacers messed up in trading Jack and how Dun and Murph are so terrible on defense. I am not saying this to offend you, but to point out that you are not doing your credibility any good by pounding on this over and over. BTW, they moved Jack and it mainly was for PR reasons, but his on court performance also had a hand in his being shipped out.

                              Can't we support the present Pacer players and leave the past where it belongs, in the past?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Odd thoughts about losing to the Nuggets....

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Dun and Murph are both weaker defenders than Al and Jack were. Yes, it's true even if the anti-Jack/Al crowd don't want to believe it.

                                DunDun is terrible manned up on guys first off. As much as DG has struggled in that regard he is still clearly stronger than Dun. Dun is unable to bump and keep up with most guards. Dun also has a bad habit of getting too far off his own guy when trying to help. You can't flat-out leave a guy on the weakside like that unless you are AI or Pippen.

                                Murph is just too slow, so much in fact that he makes Al look pretty fast.

                                Both make solid efforts which IMO disguises some of their problems. To a fan you see effort and scrambling and think "well he's part of the solution". However all that's no more helpful than a guy running hard on offense but missing all of his shots (hmmm, Dun before Denver comes to mind there too). Looks good but ulimately you aren't getting results from it.

                                Tins is the same as always. Actually that's not true. Tinsley has actually improved his defense in the last few weeks. He doesn't deny penetration of course, but he has been good at pulling some AI steal tricks himself, something he hadn't been doing. You know, sneaking baseline to steal entry passes from underneath, stuff like that. I'm not calling that good defense, just better than what he was doing a few months ago.

                                Foster's defense has looked much better the last month as well. He's been closing the high PnR pretty well (finally).

                                Even Danny's one on one defense is clicking a bit more. Still needs work though.

                                So to me the trade still falls as the main reason for the defensive struggles. And everybody ripped me a new one when I complained about it right at the time of the deal, like I just wanted to hate players or something.

                                I don't hate any of the new players, and I didn't like some aspects of Jack or Al either. I'm just calling the SKILLS as I see them. This team wanted to move Jack for PR reasons and got kicked in the defensive crotch to do so.



                                I don't know if that's what is going on with RC and Tinsley, but I totally agree with your logic behind why he would play him if he didn't want to. I'm also in the camp of laughing at "showcase" playing time. Ridiculous. Besides, some players are showcased better by not playing and letting memory and rep take over. Playing can remind scouts about a player's faults just as much as the positives.

                                HEALTH is the only reason you play a guy as a showcase, to prove he isn't injured if those are concerns. Ability and chemistry issues are things that other teams always think they can fix and thus require no showcasing.

                                Just look at Pacers fans who scout trade potential by seeing which player isn't getting to play with their current team. "X" is in the doghouse there, so they would probably be willing to trade him. If Tins hit the bench all the time plenty of teams would be calling since the signal would be "not part of our plans any more". Those teams know what Tins is about at this point.

                                I am going to assume that you don't lump me in the anti Jackson/Harrington crowd.

                                Now if you would have said anti-O'Neal crowd then maybe, but I always liked Al & although I was not the fan that you & AJbry are of Jackson I never hated on him for his game. There were times he frustrated me on offense, but I liked his defense.

                                Now I hated, I'll reclarify, HATED with the passion of a white hot sun when Jackson would jaw with the refs. & when he would yap at Rick for taking him out of a game.

                                But even with all of that I never hated his game.

                                However I do not think that Mike is the bag of crap that you seem to think he is. Yes, I know you keep denying that you are calling him a bag of crap but let's be real, that's what it comes across as.

                                If we are totally honest with ourselves we have to admit two things.

                                1. The Pacers as constructed going into this season were not going anywhere. Oh we would have made the playoffs & we still will, but we were not a real threat to anybody.

                                2. The current team as constructed probably is not going anywhere either. Oh we will make the playoffs but we are no real threat to anybody.

                                So given that both scenarios are what they are, then how can anybody blame them for making a trade for P.R.'s sake?

                                Now I contend it was not just for P.R., but let's use your theory & say it is.

                                If the previous team was not a title contender but had two malcontents (Saras & Harrington) & one player that was universally hated by the local fan base how can you blame them for making the move.

                                Will it make the team worse? In your opinion maybe. But unless you are going to say that the other team was going to gell & become a title contender it's a lateral move at worst & in some ways a far superior move.

                                Fine, let's give you that Jackson is better than Mike. I don't totally agree to this but for this post let's just say it's so.

                                Well, IMO, Danny at the three is an upgrade over Al.

                                Troy, IMO, is an upgrade over Jeff.

                                Ike being the backup p.f. is an upgrade over Baston or Williams.

                                Armstrong is an upgrade over Saras.

                                Powell vs. McCloud is a wash.

                                But even if it all was just an even split or even if we took a talent dip unless you are going to say that unit was going farther, then it is hard to blame the management from purging itself.

                                I tend to think we still have two more players left to purge. But we'll see.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X