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

Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

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

  • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    There are several differences. Teams were built organically through the draft and clever trades. It's welcome part of the game. The fact there wasn't parity at times happened because of interesting strategy, not star players simply deciding to play on the same team. It was more like a chess match in the off season. Now it's like a 5 year old, if he had the keys to the car, could build a super team. Not interesting. I understand the money might flow in but again that says more about the casual fan than it does anything else.
    This reply was to your post...verbatim:

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This is no intrigue. There is a lot of SMH. Yes, the Cavs won and LeBron did surprise me. But when I talk about competition I kinda want more than 2 teams possibly having a chance over the course of 5 years.
    So I asked: "what's the difference between now and then?" Only the way they obtained those players? Regardless, basically one or two teams ruled each decade, with the exception being the 70's. And obviously not too many people cared for parity then, because that was, coincidently, when the NBA was at its lowest point.

    Then there was the style of play. There was more variety and creativity. Now it's all about the 3. We don't even have traditional centers and point guards because the game is some kind of track meet / horse shooting contest. It's really worse basketball than we have ever seen.
    The statements in bold I disagree with. I agree that we don't have traditional centers and point guards, but that's because the game has evolved, IMO. But there wasn't more variety then. The 80's, and especially the 90's was mostly ISO and pass into the center while everyone mostly stands around. Now maybe these millennium teams are more prone to run-and-gun, and shooting the 3; but, you make it sound like it's less skillful now than before, and I find that false.

    Now, after saying that, I said this in an old post from the "Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch" thread last year:

    I do. Give me for my starting lineup...

    Hakeem
    Barkley
    Pippin
    Jordan
    Gary Payton

    You can have...

    Lebron
    Durant
    And mix-and-match whomever you decide. The only person, IMO, that would give them trouble would be Lebron. Pippin would cancel out Durant, meaning...the only way Kevin scores more than 20 would be if he was on fire from 3 point land. I doubt anyone would out rebound Barkley individually. And there isn't a player today that would outwork Hakeem on offense nor defense. Gary isn't the greatest scoring Pg, but even someone like Westbrook wouldn't just be scoring at will against him. Then the bench would consist of say....

    Shaq
    Malone
    Drexler
    Grant Hill
    Penny Hardaway
    The bench alone would probably destroy any starting lineup of now.
    And I still stand by that statement. But, I don't believe that this new style is the worse basketball we've ever seen.

    Comment


    • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

      Originally posted by pogi View Post
      This reply was to your post...verbatim:



      So I asked: "what's the difference between now and then?" Only the way they obtained those players? Regardless, basically one or two teams ruled each decade, with the exception being the 70's. And obviously not too many people cared for parity then, because that was, coincidently, when the NBA was at its lowest point.



      The statements in bold I disagree with. I agree that we don't have traditional centers and point guards, but that's because the game has evolved, IMO. But there wasn't more variety then. The 80's, and especially the 90's was mostly ISO and pass into the center while everyone mostly stands around. Now maybe these millennium teams are more prone to run-and-gun, and shooting the 3; but, you make it sound like it's less skillful now than before, and I find that false.

      Now, after saying that, I said this in an old post from the "Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch" thread last year:



      And I still stand by that statement. But, I don't believe that this new style is the worse basketball we've ever seen.
      I tend to wonder how old you are because this is the worst basketball I have ever seen and I've been watching it closely for over 30 years and went to my first game about 47 years ago.

      Also, you fixate on the fact there was no parity in the mid 1980's and I agree. But you ignore part of what I'm saying, highlight one sentence, take it out of context...and fail to understand what I'm saying.

      Notice I said "There is no intrigue." at the beginning of the sentence you focused on. The fact is, in the 80's there was intrigue because those teams were crafted and put together via the draft and fair trades. They were built within the field of competition for talent, not a simple agreement among star players deciding to team up.

      Like I've said, a 5 year old child could match up his favorite players on a team and...with no competition at all...build a team that is likely to win the title. An imbecile could do that. It takes basketball genius to compete for acquiring talent on the market or in the draft and put together a team capable of competing and beating the best in the league.

      Huge, huge difference.

      Comment


      • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        I tend to wonder how old you are because this is the worst basketball I have ever seen and I've been watching it closely for over 30 years and went to my first game about 47 years ago.
        I've been watching basketball since the mid 80's; but, I still disagree that basketball now is the worse. Hell, the Pacers team alone during that time was way worse than a majority of teams playing now.

        Also, you fixate on the fact there was no parity in the mid 1980's and I agree. But you ignore part of what I'm saying, highlight one sentence, take it out of context...and fail to understand what I'm saying. Notice I said "There is no intrigue." at the beginning of the sentence you focused on.
        Please enlighten me on how I took your statement:
        But when I talk about competition I kinda want more than 2 teams possibly having a chance over the course of 5 years.
        out of context with my given reply? Are you saying as long as teams drafted all their all-stars, you're okay with that? I may be wrong, but this is what I would consider a contradiction.

        The fact is, in the 80's there was intrigue because those teams were crafted and put together via the draft and fair trades. They were built within the field of competition for talent, not a simple agreement among star players deciding to team up.

        Like I've said, a 5 year old child could match up his favorite players on a team and...with no competition at all...build a team that is likely to win the title. An imbecile could do that. It takes basketball genius to compete for acquiring talent on the market or in the draft and put together a team capable of competing and beating the best in the league.

        Huge, huge difference.
        Ok. Let's look at the two teams atop their respected conferences (because I'm thinking these teams are what your statement is alluding to)

        Golden State
        Steph Curry - drafted by the Warriors
        Klay Thompson - drafted by the Warriors
        Draymond Green - drafted by the Warriors
        Kevin Durant - came from free agency

        Cleveland Cavaliers
        Lebron James - drafted by Cleveland, left, and came back through free agency
        Kyrie Irving - drafted by Cleveland
        Kevin Love - traded to Cleveland
        Tristan Thompson - drafted by Cleveland

        These teams were "crafted and put together via drafts and good trades".

        Now if YOU are not "intrigued" or like this style of basketball, that's subjective and your opinion, and I respect it; but, according to your statement, it sounds like you're insinuating that they didn't come together the same way that teams did prior. So, with all due respect, I don't see how this was such a huge, huge difference. What it boils down to, is timing. Everything is coming together for these two teams at the right time. And I guarantee that in few years or so, there will be another team that comes along, is dominant, and everyone will complain about them for whatever reason.

        And that's what I feel a majority of posts the last couple of pages of this thread is about....
        Parity and Super-teams. And my replies were (not exactly verbatim):
        Parity - I feel that there has really never been parity throughout the league. It seems that there's realistically only a few teams every year that have a chance, and usually only a couple that are dominant for several years before they experience downtime. And yes, once in a while there comes a team that wins their one and only championship, but I don't consider that "parity" in the sense that people here feel the league should have. And regardless of whatever rule changes and what-not, there will always be a dynasty that comes along, and it'll seem like only one or two other teams even have the chance to take them down. I also mentioned that the only decade where there wasn't a dynasty or dominant-laden squad, and there was parity, was the 70's; and, coincidently, that was the lowest point (to date) for the NBA.
        Super-teams - I mentioned that I lose respect for players that may decide to join and create a super-team; but, I also feel that it's in their right to do so, if they feel that validates their career or whatever reason. I also don't think that this reason alone will be the downfall of the NBA. Especially when I may see games on TV where two teams of lesser stature play and the capacity looks like a regular season baseball game; then, a super-team will play there, and it becomes standing room only.

        Comment


        • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

          There was a lack of parity in the mid 1980's, but that was the product of competitive trading and drafting. I think this is the part you are missing. Competition isn't just on the floor.

          As for Golden State, their first title run was beautiful. They were indeed built naturally through the draft. My only issue with that team is their offense. Yes I know Curry and Thompson can shoot better than anyone. You might as well watch the first two minutes of the game and turn the TV off because you are not seeing anything different the rest of the game. IOW, the game isn't interesting because there is no diversity to it. When Durant went to GS after narrowly losing to them in the playoffs after GS had broken the league record for wins, it became clear the NBA is totally fake.

          As for Cleveland, they are a fake team. LeBron may well have been drafted by Cleveland but when he attempted to compete naturally the first time, he failed. He wasn't patient enough with the franchise to build an adequate team around him, so he got on the phone and created a super team in Miami. Once that fizzled, he went back to Cleveland (once again his decision, not through fair trading) to exorcise his demons after losing there. Yes he won a title. But the reality is, he never did win a legitimate title. LeBron James himself was not acquired by Cleveland fairly. Kevin Love was recruited by LeBron and was a huge part of the reason they became good enough to make the finals.

          Also, in the past it used to be older players ala David West who were joining teams to chase a ring. He did that in San Antonio and now Golden State. Nowadays, players in their prime are doing that. When that happens, one team loses their star player and immediately becomes irrelevant and I fail to see the reason why anyone would follow that team.

          Comment


          • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

            I think the big thing people supporting Super Teams are missing is that the acquisition of players has to be fair or the league isn't going to be competitive. It's like one team is allowed to take steroids while the rest of the league cannot do that. Normally teams and players are stripped of their titles for cheating. Not in the NBA though which is why it has turned into a fake league.

            Comment


            • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

              Here is another issue with Super Teams. They take nights off because they can afford to do that and still compete for the playoffs...and fans get short changed because of it. This exacerbates the unfairness by keeping the stars well rested while the rest of the league has to scratch and claw for wins.


              Cavs' front office OK with Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, and Kevin Love all missing Memphis game


              http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index....with_kyri.html
              Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-21-2017, 10:49 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                I think the big thing people supporting Super Teams are missing is that the acquisition of players has to be fair or the league isn't going to be competitive. It's like one team is allowed to take steroids while the rest of the league cannot do that. Normally teams and players are stripped of their titles for cheating. Not in the NBA though which is why it has turned into a fake league.
                So you're essentially saying that LeBron can't ever change teams. If he can't sign with a team in free agency that only won 33 games the previous year (Cleveland) and he was the only major free agent to sign there, who can he sign with?

                Let's say Kyle Lowry for some reason decides to go home and sign with the 76ers this year. Philly turns around and trades for Jimmy Butler. Is that unfair that they managed to get one star in free agency? They still had to convince him to come, and then they had to turn around and offer enough assets for a star. But you standard seems to be that any star that changes teams that doesn't go to the worst situation possible is a problem.

                Comment


                • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  There was a lack of parity in the mid 1980's, but that was the product of competitive trading and drafting. I think this is the part you are missing. Competition isn't just on the floor.
                  What exactly am I missing? The two examples I used (Cleveland and Golden State) basically did JUST that - competitive trading and drafting. Only thing really different is free agency. Are you saying that free agency is the reason you're not intrigued? Because if you are, then you should remember our last two eastern conference finals, which included David West, whom we got through free agency. Or think about the early 90's when Byron Scott signed with us, and everything changed.

                  As for Golden State, their first title run was beautiful. They were indeed built naturally through the draft. My only issue with that team is their offense. Yes I know Curry and Thompson can shoot better than anyone. You might as well watch the first two minutes of the game and turn the TV off because you are not seeing anything different the rest of the game. IOW, the game isn't interesting because there is no diversity to it.
                  Do you like Memphis Grizzlies? Do you feel their games are diverse? Because all I see a majority of the time is 'throw it into Gasol'.

                  When Durant went to GS after narrowly losing to them in the playoffs after GS had broken the league record for wins, it became clear the NBA is totally fake.
                  Please explain. The NBA is fake because a player was able to go to a team that was a contender when he became a free agent? Honestly, this comes across more like: "I'm hating because he didn't want to come to the Pacers."

                  As for Cleveland, they are a fake team. LeBron may well have been drafted by Cleveland but when he attempted to compete naturally the first time, he failed. He wasn't patient enough with the franchise to build an adequate team around him, so he got on the phone and created a super team in Miami. Once that fizzled, he went back to Cleveland (once again his decision, not through fair trading) to exorcise his demons after losing there. Yes he won a title. But the reality is, he never did win a legitimate title.
                  Many will disagree with this

                  LeBron James himself was not acquired by Cleveland fairly.
                  I honestly felt that was shady, myself. Almost like when the Knicks got the #1 pick when Ewing was coming into the draft.

                  Kevin Love was recruited by LeBron and was a huge part of the reason they became good enough to make the finals.
                  OOOkaay??? Why do you feel this is a problem?

                  Also, in the past it used to be older players ala David West who were joining teams to chase a ring. He did that in San Antonio and now Golden State. Nowadays, players in their prime are doing that.

                  So to sum up your statement...it seems like you have a problem with free agency. Especially if a free agent is in their prime, and gets to go a contender, correct? So you're saying a player should basically only stay with the team that drafted them, or get traded to; otherwise, it's unfair and stupid? I call hogwash on that

                  When that happens, one team loses their star player and immediately becomes irrelevant and I fail to see the reason why anyone would follow that team.
                  So if Paul George decides to leave after this year, you'll never watch another Pacer game again? Again, hogwash.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    I think the big thing people supporting Super Teams are missing is that the acquisition of players has to be fair or the league isn't going to be competitive. It's like one team is allowed to take steroids while the rest of the league cannot do that. Normally teams and players are stripped of their titles for cheating. Not in the NBA though which is why it has turned into a fake league.
                    But it's not cheating. It's perfectly legal, according to rules. And again, I guarantee you'd sing a different tune if Lebron, KD, or any other big-name player decided to come here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                      The grapes have never been more sour....

                      In this little bubble though, it's good for a laugh
                      Last edited by Kstat; 01-21-2017, 01:30 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Here is another issue with Super Teams. They take nights off because they can afford to do that and still compete for the playoffs...and fans get short changed because of it. This exacerbates the unfairness by keeping the stars well rested while the rest of the league has to scratch and claw for wins.


                        Cavs' front office OK with Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, and Kevin Love all missing Memphis game


                        http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index....with_kyri.html
                        This, I'm in complete agreement with you. These players are getting paid millions to play....go out and play!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                          Originally posted by pogi View Post
                          This, I'm in complete agreement with you. These players are getting paid millions to play....go out and play!
                          So blame the coach for not playing them. Healthy players can't decide not to play without punishment unless the coach allows it.

                          Problem is, when your best player has a poor postseason the coach is usually the first to get blamed for overusing him during the regular season.

                          I don't hate resting older stars. Rather than than have a guy burn out early.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 01-21-2017, 01:33 PM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            So blame the coach for not playing them. Healthy players can't decide not to play without punishment unless the coach allows it.

                            Problem is, when your best player has a poor postseason the coach is usually the first to get blamed for overusing him during the regular season.

                            I don't hate resting older stars. Rather than than have a guy burn out early.
                            I wasn't placing blame, I was merely stating I don't like it

                            Comment


                            • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                              Originally posted by pogi View Post
                              I wasn't placing blame, I was merely stating I don't like it
                              No one likes it, but human beings need to recuperate at some point.

                              People complained that the best pitchers couldn't go every 3rd day, then they complained that they couldn't go every 4th day. People got over it.

                              When resting your best players proves to be a bad strategic decision coaches will stop doing it. So far the feedback suggests otherwise.

                              Personally, I enjoy being able to see guys play that normally would never get a chance 2-3 games a year.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 01-21-2017, 01:40 PM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: Report: LeBron James increasingly frustrated with how he's officiated

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                No one likes it, but human beings need to recuperate at some point.

                                People complained that the best pitchers couldn't go every 3rd day, then they complained that they couldn't go every 4th day. People got over it.

                                When resting your best players proves to be a bad strategic decision coaches will stop doing it. So far the feedback suggests otherwise.
                                On one side of the coin - this is partly why I feel the best of these millennium players couldn't contend with the best players of the past. Those players played hurt, sick, fatigued, and still had the fortitude to muster up energy after a season-long strain and win championships. Those players had to have had almost devastating pains before you could pry them off the court.

                                On the other side of the coin - this is one of the reasons I'm all for free-agency, and a player being able to pick which team they want to go to, even in their prime. Life of a athlete is relatively short; and, you never know when one day you're out doing your thing, and just a simple misstep, or a slight twist the wrong way could end your livelihood as an athlete.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X