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

Did Frank get the most out this team?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Seeding is a direct result of 82 games. You can't just toss out the whole stinking season because it fits your narrative.

    Imagine hearing someone say how awful GS is and their response being "I don't care about their record or what seed they have. You can get caught up in seeds all you want, but were the Clippers a 4 seed by season's end? Was Memphis a 7 seed by season's end?"

    That hypothetical is as grounded in reasoning as yours. Seedings are based on what you see on the court. Those don't magically disappear because you want to argue they're not as good as what their record says.

    No amount of shoddy comparisons will ever change the fact that Toronto was a 56 win 2seeded team.
    Certainly, seeding should be considered. However, one should also look at how team's matchup. It's no different than the NCAA tournament, when you can look right away and see that a certain team has a favorable road or at least matches up well against their opponent with a higher seed.

    Pacers matched up favorably to the Raptors, and again, were in the driver's seat to win the series and failed. From that perspective, yes they underachieved.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      Paul George shut down DeRozan for the majority of the series, and Lowry was dreadful from the field. Pacers had the best player in the series, and it wasn't particularly close. If Pacers win Game 5, which they were clearly in the driver's seat late in the game, they have a good shot of winning that series.

      You can get caught up in seeds all you want, but were the Clippers a 4 seed by season's end? The Grizzlies a 7 seed by season's end?

      I prefer to actually look at the play on the court.

      There wasn't much difference between the Pacers and the Raptors and blowing a Game 5 late in the game because you refused to play Ellis and Hill 40 minutes is inexcusable in a critical game on the road that was very much winnable.
      I prefer to take off my fanboy blinders and be unbiased. We had the best player, but Toronto had the best team. How can you apply under/overachieved labels to teams when you just look at a playoff series in a vacuum? For example let's look at the recent Oklahoma City/Golden State series. OKC was up 3-1. So do you also say that the Thunder underachieved? They looked like the best team in the series after 4 games.

      You're getting 'almost stealing the series, but coming up short' mixed up with underachieved. That's why they call it stealing the series.

      And for the record, I have no idea where you're going with the Grizzlies/Clippers point.

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      Certainly, seeding should be considered. However, one should also look at how team's matchup. It's no different than the NCAA tournament, when you can look right away and see that a certain team has a favorable road or at least matches up well against their opponent with a higher seed.

      Pacers matched up favorably to the Raptors, and again, were in the driver's seat to win the series and failed. From that perspective, yes they underachieved.
      How do we match up favorably against the Raptors?? Let's not base both team's talent levels based on the first 4 games in the series, which you seem hell-bent on doing. They have two All-Stars in Lowry and DeRozan. Their frontcourt steals our frontcourt's lunch money.

      For the last time, we were up in that series because we were overachieving. And you know the likely reason why? Let me clue you in: Mr. Frank Vogel. He had this franchise playing out of it's mind during those first four games, as well as as a whole in his tenure here.
      Last edited by adamscb; 05-31-2016, 10:41 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

        Originally posted by adamscb View Post
        I prefer to take off my fanboy blinders and be unbiased. We had the best player, but Toronto had the best team. How can you apply under/overachieved labels to teams when you just look at a playoff series in a vacuum? For example let's look at the recent Oklahoma City/Golden State series. OKC was up 3-1. So do you also say that the Thunder underachieved? They looked like the best team in the series after 4 games.

        You're getting 'almost stealing the series, but coming up short' with underachieved. That's why they call it stealing the series.

        And for the record, I have no idea where you're going with the Grizzlies/Clippers point.
        Please refrain from personal attacks, please. People who resort to those generally don't have valid points.

        Thunder were playing a team that won 73 games, have the 2x MVP and arguably the best basketball player on the planet, and were dominant on their homecourt. That's a horrible comparison and is like comparing apples to oranges.

        Let's not compare them to the 56 win Toronto Raptors.

        The Raptors went to 7 games with both the Pacers and Heat, so they aren't this East juggernaut by any means.

        When you factor in that George completely took DeRozan out of the series, and they had one remaining all-star Lowry--who shot terribly in the series. They were ripe for the upset, and the Pacers couldn't capitalize--in large part because Vogel refused to play his starters 40 minutes in a Game 5 and watched as an 18 point deficit quickly evaporated.

        If you have an 18 point lead in the 4th quarter and the next game is a clinching game at-home, you're in the driver's seat. Are you not?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

          Originally posted by PR07 View Post
          Please refrain from personal attacks, please. People who resort to those generally don't have valid points.

          Thunder were playing a team that won 73 games, have the 2x MVP and arguably the best basketball player on the planet, and were dominant on their homecourt. That's a horrible comparison and is like comparing apples to oranges.

          Let's not compare them to the 56 win Toronto Raptors.

          The Raptors went to 7 games with both the Pacers and Heat, so they aren't this East juggernaut by any means.

          When you factor in that George completely took DeRozan out of the series, and they had one remaining all-star Lowry--who shot terribly in the series. They were ripe for the upset, and the Pacers couldn't capitalize--in large part because Vogel refused to play his starters 40 minutes in a Game 5 and watched as an 18 point deficit quickly evaporated.

          If you have an 18 point lead in the 4th quarter and the next game is a clinching game at-home, you're in the driver's seat. Are you not?
          I apologize if I hurt your feelings. We were behind the Raptors by 11 games, and OKC was behind the Warriors by 18. That comparison isn't so far-fetched as you may think. You are in the driver's seat at that point, but the reason why you're in the driver's seat, and likely one of the biggest reasons we made the playoffs in the first place, is because of Frank.

          See with the OKC/Warriors series, you looked at the whole season together, and not the series in a vacuum. Why can't that same thinking be applied to the Pacers? The Raptors are the better team, whether you like it or not.

          The title of this thread is 'Did Frank get the most out [of] this team?', not 'Were we in a good position to win this series, but did not?'
          Last edited by adamscb; 05-31-2016, 09:35 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

            Frank overachieved every season. Look at our rosters that went to the ECF. We had PG, Hibbert, an aging David West, George Hill and Lance Stephenson as the best players on the team. And arguably, the best players were Lance and PG. Quite a huge gap between those two, not to mention all the ego problems. Yea, that team with any other coach doesn't get as far as Frank took them.
            Those were the best years, but also look at what he did with last years team. That team had no business taking the Raps to 7 games. Then look at the first year where he completely revitalized this franchise from perennial losers, with hardly any chance to make the playoffs to actually putting up a fight to with the top seeded Bulls and then to contenders in a short span.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

              How long teams went with a bench lineup w/o one of their top 3 playoff scorers on the floor during the entire playoffs before the Finals...

              Spurs went 19.43 minutes
              Grizzlies went 5.25 minutes
              Pistons went 10.46
              Blazers never played a minute w/o one of their top 2 scorers on the court.
              Thunder never played a minute w/o one of their top 2 scorers on the court.
              Mavericks never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
              Warriors have gone 25.9 minutes thus far w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court (keep in mind Steph injured and blowouts)
              Rockets never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
              Raptors never played a minute w/o one of their top 2 scorers on the court.
              Heat never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
              Hornets never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
              Cavs have gone 25.17 minutes thus far w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
              Celtics went 8.48
              Hawks went 17.34

              Pacers went 39.1 w/o one of their top scorers on the court.

              Comparing the Pacers playoff rotation to the rest of the league shows how absurd Vogel rotations were.

              I would say the Pacers aren't as deep as any of these teams not named the Grizzlies, entered the playoffs as the least efficient offensive team and had a Lawson was noticeably unplayable immediately - even in a Game 1 win. And even after 4 games of complaints about having too much trust in the bench and not tightening up the lineup to a league normal playoff rotation, Game 5 happened.

              Vogel's stubbornness absolutely held us back. This team was not built for the regular season, but could have made a deep playoff run. Vogel sitting our best scorers in favor of a crap near all bench unit led by at guy that played a little over 10 games was plain cost us.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                "We had the talent to win 50+ games in the east".

                "We had the least amount of depth of any team in the playoffs"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                  Originally posted by adamscb View Post
                  I apologize if I hurt your feelings. We were behind the Raptors by 11 games, and OKC was behind the Warriors by 18. That comparison isn't so far-fetched as you may think. You are in the driver's seat at that point, but the reason why you're in the driver's seat, and likely one of the biggest reasons we made the playoffs in the first place, is because of Frank.

                  See with the OKC/Warriors series, you looked at the whole season together, and not the series in a vacuum. Why can't that same thinking be applied to the Pacers? The Raptors are the better team, whether you like it or not.

                  The title of this thread is 'Did Frank get the most out [of] this team?', not 'Were we in a good position to win this series, but did not?'
                  And like I already stated, the Pacers overachieved to get to the postseason, but at the same time, underachieved against the Raptors in the playoffs.

                  I could care less about seeding because what's more important is how team's matchup against one another come postseason time. The Raptors were the #2 seed in a watered down Eastern Conference, where it is essentially the Cavaliers and everyone else. There wasn't much difference between the #2-7 seed in this year's Eastern Conference, and the playoffs obviously reflected that.

                  Raptors may have been the better team, but it was not by much. One should look at each series as a whole, and the Pacers were up by 18 in the 4th quarter and had a clinching Game 6 at home. From that perspective, the team failed to get the job done and underachieved.

                  They matched up very, very well to the Raptors and in my opinion should've won the series. Frank underachieved from that perspective because Bird obviously felt the same way, and that's why he's no longer head coach.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    "We had the talent to win 50+ games in the east".

                    "We had the least amount of depth of any team in the playoffs"
                    How are these points mutually exclusive?

                    We won 45 games and lost several with questionable lineups even then.
                    Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-31-2016, 09:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      How long teams went with a bench lineup w/o one of their top 3 playoff scorers on the floor during the entire playoffs before the Finals...

                      Spurs went 19.43 minutes
                      Grizzlies went 5.25 minutes
                      Pistons went 10.46
                      Blazers never played a minute w/o one of their top 2 scorers on the court.
                      Thunder never played a minute w/o one of their top 2 scorers on the court.
                      Mavericks never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
                      Warriors have gone 25.9 minutes thus far w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court (keep in mind Steph injured and blowouts)
                      Rockets never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
                      Raptors never played a minute w/o one of their top 2 scorers on the court.
                      Heat never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
                      Hornets never played a minute w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
                      Cavs have gone 25.17 minutes thus far w/o one of their top 3 scorers on the court.
                      Celtics went 8.48
                      Hawks went 17.34

                      Pacers went 39.1 w/o one of their top scorers on the court.

                      Comparing the Pacers playoff rotation to the rest of the league shows how absurd Vogel rotations were.

                      I would say the Pacers aren't as deep as any of these teams not named the Grizzlies, entered the playoffs as the least efficient offensive team and had a Lawson was noticeably unplayable immediately - even in a Game 1 win. And even after 4 games of complaints about having too much trust in the bench and not tightening up the lineup to a league normal playoff rotation, Game 5 happened.

                      Vogel's stubbornness absolutely held us back. This team was not built for the regular season, but could have made a deep playoff run. Vogel sitting our best scorers in favor of a crap near all bench unit led by at guy that played a little over 10 games was plain cost us.
                      This is gold.

                      "But the Raptors were a #2 seed!"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        And like I already stated, the Pacers overachieved to get to the postseason, but at the same time, underachieved against the Raptors in the playoffs.

                        I could care less about seeding because what's more important is how team's matchup against one another come postseason time. The Raptors were the #2 seed in a watered down Eastern Conference, where it is essentially the Cavaliers and everyone else. There wasn't much difference between the #2-7 seed in this year's Eastern Conference, and the playoffs obviously reflected that.

                        Raptors may have been the better team, but it was not by much. One should look at each series as a whole, and the Pacers were up by 18 in the 4th quarter and had a clinching Game 6 at home. From that perspective, the team failed to get the job done and underachieved.

                        They matched up very, very well to the Raptors and in my opinion should've won the series. Frank underachieved from that perspective because Bird obviously felt the same way, and that's why he's no longer head coach.
                        1) Seeding is way more important than how teams match up with each other. That's why the whole playoff system is based around seeding. That's why you play an 82 game season. They don't say "these teams match up well against each other, let's have them play!'", or, "this would be a fun series to watch!" That's why since the Playoffs expanded to 8 teams per conference, there's only been ten bottom seeds to upset top seeds.

                        2) The East wasn't the Cavs and everyone else. It was the Cavs and the Raptors, and then everyone else. It's pretty clear, look it up. Yes the Raptors played poorly, which is why I'm saying they are the ones who underachieved, not us.

                        3) Ok, I'll do what you say and look at the series as a whole (which is exactly what you aren't doing, by the way). We lost 4-3 to a team that won 11 more games than us in the regular season. Does the regular season not matter now? That's essentially what you're saying, in saying that seeding doesn't matter. You need to look at the season as a whole, which is what I've been saying to you in this entire thread. And how can you say we should have beat them, when we went 1-3 against them in the regular season? Ohh that's right, the regular season doesn't matter anymore!

                        Suck it up: we lost.

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        This is gold.

                        "But the Raptors were a #2 seed!"
                        Again, another broad statement you make that doesn't really do anything to help your argument.

                        "But seeding doesn't matter anymore!" "The regular season doesn't matter anymore!" We should probably just go straight into the playoffs, and have teams play each other based on how people perceive in their minds they match up, right?
                        Last edited by adamscb; 05-31-2016, 11:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                          Regular season matters.

                          But the Pacers and Raptors were different teams in the playoffs.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                            Maybe it's really a question of whether you believe "change for change's sake" can make a positive impact on the team in the coaching department.

                            Your Popovich and Sloan situations are extremely few and far between. NBA franchises change up coaches from time to time, I believe its natural. I think a team sometimes needs a shot in the arm and a coaching change is a good way to do it. Look at the jump in wins from Bob Hill to Brown, from Brown to Bird, from Thomas to Carlisle, from Obrien to Vogel. Etc... It's just part of the process. I really like Vogel and I think he is a great coach, I hope he learns from this experience and gets better. I think he will. I believe it's possible to like Frank and appreciate what he did for the franchise, think he's a good coach, and still believe this was the right move at this point in time. I don't believe these things are mutually exclusive at all.

                            Frank had flaws like all coaches do, he did make some mistakes this past season. I think he can learn from them and I think Orlando is a great situation for him to grow as a coach. That said, don't be shocked if Nate Mcmillan leads this team to a significant increase in wins next season. I've seen it happen before.
                            Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 05-31-2016, 11:25 PM.
                            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                            - ilive4sports

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                              NBA Playoff seeding is 100% record based. So there's no thought to making sure the best and worst 'playing' teams at the end of the season meet off the bat, or that the two best won't meet until the CF's...
                              Meanwhile, NCAA seeding is much more massaged to make sure the best and worst team in a region meet to begin with... They take into consideration more than overall record. And matchups can be considered as seeding is handed out.
                              The NBA is overall record only. An NBA team that really turns it on at the end can really make some noise in the NBA playoffs versus a team that started hot and tailed off... regardless of where the overall record seeded them. And regardless if an 8th seed is a matchup nightmare for a 1 seed... or a 7th seed matches up well with a 2nd seed....
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Did Frank get the most out this team?

                                Let me flip the script here PR07. Let's go back in time to the 2014 NBA playoffs. We were the #1 seed in the East, but we came into the playoffs on a rather cold streak. Our overall record was 56-26 (ironically, the same record the Raptors had this year). The Hawks had a record of 38-44 (only a 7 game difference from our record this year). As far as matchups were concerned, I remember all the commentators saying the Hawks could give us some trouble. They were up on us 2-1, but the series went to 7 games and we ended up winning. Would you say the Atlanta Hawks underachieved?
                                Last edited by adamscb; 05-31-2016, 11:43 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X