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

Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

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

  • #31
    Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    You don't think that the fact that Granger might have a lack of confidence in his abilities is bad for him? If that scenario you just laid out happened then I'm sure Lebron scores because LeBron believes he can score on anyone and Granger believes LeBron can score on anyone. Btw, that which you described is misplaced confidence. DA would never believe he could guard LeBron.

    What makes Granger a great defender is that even as a rookie he never shied away from guys like VC, Pierce, or LeBron.
    I'd argue that Granger's biggest problem last year was his lack of confidence. I don't think this is a chronic problem, or individual to him at all, but he did often have that "Deer in the Headlights" look to him.

    It's natural for all players trying to adjust to a league that is so much faster and more physical than you've ever played in before. It causes you to question your abilities when moves you have made your whole basketball life don't work or when you can no longer use athleticism to be better than your opponent. (Danny will be fine. Just an example.)

    If you're actually good/great, you overcome this and you quickly realize that "Hey, I'm still as good as I've always been. I just need to adjust my game/thinking/habits in order to have the same impact I had in college."

    Some guys have the ability and persevere. Some don't and don't. And I'd argue it has a lot to do with your surroundings.

    Because like height, confidence in your own ability isn't something you can teach. It can be instilled in you by another player/mentor/coach, but it can't be taught. I think this is a big part of all the "Great players make the people around them better." I can't even imagine how much MJ helped Pippen by continually making him believe that he was the 2nd best player on the court---and this was occuring on a court where the first best player on the court happened to be the best player of all time.

    Similarly, DWade is extremely talented. But the fact that he had a guy like Shaq (arguably the MDE) around in his developmental phase telling him daily that the Heat are his team and he is better than Kobe and better than Penny and the best player in the League, really instills a feeling of confidence in a young player that is infectious. And once the "kid" starts believing how the "vet" feels about him, his confidence gets to a point whereit reaches an unflappable level.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

      if you don't believe confidence is a big thing, you might want to talk to nick anderson.

      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
      1. Depth is overrated.....I'd say sometimes it is, and sometimes it isnt. Your example is a valid one though.....for instance, I could say that my Cubs have a bullpen with a lot of "depth".....in fact, what they have is a 7 guys who all suck about equally. Lots of quantity, not much quality.
      that argument doesn't really work because describing depth in your terms means every team has essentially the same amount of depth. the term depth usually is used in terms of the quality of the players from top to bottom. because all teams are supposed to have so many players on a team, yes at varried positions. but you're saying that because the pistons have 14 players and the bobcats have 14 players so currently they have equal amounts of depth? portland 12, phoenix 12?
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

        Just to digup the confidence issue ... i agreee its overrated and i think that people put far to high a price on it but i also think some sort of confidence is so vital .... in that nets game 6 when everyone lost confidence in there shot and cro was leaving the wide open 3 .....wasnt gd! .... looks at Odom, the guy can flat out play but doesnt have the confidence to put the ball up! ....


        Im not saying that confidence is the be all and end all but i am saying that players need to be confortable and confident in there ability to execute as necessary!
        'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
        Animal Farm, by George Orwell

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
          if you don't believe confidence is a big thing, you might want to talk to nick anderson.
          Or Greg Norman. Or Chuck Knobloch. Or ARod. Or Calvin Schiraldi. Or Brad Lidge.

          The results of losing your confidence in the NBA are generally less obvious than these baseball guys seeing as how it's easier to blend in on an NBA court. And the game is different so you don't see basketball players completely fall off the table usually (aside from Nick Anderson), but I'd say confidence is half the reason we consider people "streaky" shooters. They just don't have the cool, collected self-confidence in their jumper of a Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton and so they swing violently between thinking they are the best shooter in the world and hesitating because they're not sure if they are even taking a good shot.

          For evidence see: Walker, Antoine; Richardson, Quentin; Jackson, Stephen; or Starks, John
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

            This is an excellent thread. The focus keeps getting better, and there is more light than heat.

            I'd like to clarify one point, make one of my own, and challenge Jay and thunderbird1245 on their case against offensive rebounds.

            First, the clarification. Depth is important, but good depth is only about 8 players. You aren't going to use 12 players effectively night in and night out. But your top five can't win by themselves, and keep winning all season and through the playoffs. The 9 through 12 guys need to be effective for team practices, but not a part of the regular rotation. If they are, either due to coach's decisions or injuries, you're in trouble.

            Notice that the consensus of the board is that "starting five" is also overrated, so it seems like the 6 through 8 positions are actually critical. It is beyond the 9 that the end of the bench doesn't matter much.

            My suggestion for overrated notions is "crunchtime." The game is 48 minutes long and I want the team to play all 48 minutes. What is more, I want them to know how to win games in the third quarter. I think that is better basketball than "putting yourself in a position to win" with the last shot.

            As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have the Pacers up eight points with a minute left to play, and see people heading for the exits than ever have another one of those 20-minute-long final :60 seconds full of fouls and timeouts and tv timeouts and blaring music leading up to a last second three attempt. We were treated to an exceptional player in Reggie, who could (and did) make the last second shot an interesting proposition. But, just as we are planning to get away from so many Boom Babies, we need to get away from a gameplan that counts on last-second shots.


            Finally, I can't understand why Jay@section204 and thunderbird1245 would say offensive rebounds are overrated. Both of these guys recognize that defense is important. Offensive rebounds are a kind of defense, n'est ce pas?

            Whenever there is a contested, loose ball, it is good for your team to get control of it. Any missed shot at either hoop results in a contested, loose ball. Getting a rebound at your end of the court means a) you deny the other team a possession, and b) you gain another chance to score. What's not to like?

            thunderbird undercuts himself with the following comment:

            Originally posted by thunderbird1245
            some teams who crash the boards hard to get an extra 3 rebounds per game might be risking giving up twice that many fast breaks by the opponent by not getting back on defense.
            This is correct, but this points to the flaw of a game plan the team is incapable of executing, not any flaw in offensive rebounds. No team ever gave up fast break points by getting control of an offensive rebound! T-bird is right that putting too much emphasis on trying for offensive rebounds can lead to breakaways if you don't control the ball. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't get better at controlling them.

            Interestingly, the three top teams for offensive rebounds last season were the Jazz, the Hawks and the Knicks. Probably all three are good examples of what Jay and thunderbird are saying can go wrong: too many misses and too much emphasis on offense. The team in fourth place for offensive rebounds was the Mavericks, and maybe they are a good example of a team that puts an appropriate emphasis on keeping the ball at their end of the court.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

              One more try on "confidence", and then Im going to fold my hand lol.

              1. All the confidence in the world doesnt help if you don't have the talent to back it up.

              2. Confidence isnt something that can be inserted into you, it has to be gained by yourself and for yourself thru hard work and achievement and talent. Tiger Woods is great, Tiger Woods is confident......but he isnt GREAT BECAUSE HE IS CONFIDENT, HE IS CONFIDENT BECAUSE HE IS GREAT.

              3. I think some of you are mixing the concept of "confidence" vs "faith".
              Faith is a belief without proof or history in your abilities, confidence is the cool assurance gained by having immense talent and success time after time.

              I think that we are all essentially correct in this argument by the way, and it would be a good topic to discuss in a bar somewhere over a few brewskies. Everyone is making good points and arguments, although I dont think Im doing as good a job explaining what I mean as I could be.

              Other than Jay, do any of you have things you feel are overrated? Let's hear yours...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                Thanks for the reply Jay...well thought out as usual, although I want to discuss some of yours before I go to bed.

                1. Depth is overrated.....I'd say sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Your example is a valid one though.....for instance, I could say that my Cubs have a bullpen with a lot of "depth".....in fact, what they have is a 7 guys who all suck about equally. Lots of quantity, not much quality.
                And in the NBA, the key to winning a playoff series is quality, not quantity.

                EDIT - Putnam, I'd still say the quality of your top 1-3 players is more important than the quality of players 6-12, at least for a seven-game playoff series. Does anybody believe the Bulls were "deeper" than us in 1998? Or that the Lakers were "deeper" than us in 2000?

                2. Individual defense is overrated.....Id amend that to say that INDIVIDUAL DEFENSIVE STATISTICS are overrated. A great individual lockdown defender, especially on the perimeter, actually made my "underrated" list in a thread I started a couple weeks ago. Having said that, your example was well explained and correct, in the sense that it was intended...I just dint think in that case that Michael Williams was indeed as good of a defender as the stats said. On a side note, Tinsley sadly has this same kind of stat line,as many of his steals come from behind, after he has been beaten off the dribble....
                I think we agree here. The difference is, you and I and fair number of posters on this board can watch a player - without the influence of statistics - and make up our own minds whether the guy can defend or not. The national media, and the marginal fan, cannot and rely on statistics. Rarely is the best defender actually voted DPOY. It usually goes to the guy with the best defensive stats.

                I want to emphasize thought that a single player capable of playing lockdown defense *can* hurt the team defense if he refuses to get into the right position for help defense or is poor at switching on the pick-and-roll or stuff like that. And then you'll hear the guy whine that his teammates just don't play defense as hard as he does, and that gets messy in a hurry.

                3. Individual rebounding...Kind of disagree here..as I think rebounding is the one area in basketball I dint mind a player being selfish in. id like to hear your reasoning on that one.
                Missed shots are going to be rebounded by someone. I don't care who it is as long as their jersey says "Pacers" on it. Some guys get a reputation as great rebounders but aren't great (good maybe, but not great.) Other guys control the paint and make it easy for their teammates to gobble up rebounds. The only rebounding stat I think to be worthwhile is rebounding %.

                4. Offensive rebounds are overrated.... I think thats basically correct, in as far as it goes. Some teams who do shoot well aren't good offensive rebounding teams by the numbers, since there are fewer chances. On top of that, some teams who crash the boards hard to get an extra 3 rebounds per game might be risking giving up twice that many fast breaks by the opponent by not getting back on defense. Its kind of like the stat of turning the most double plays in baseball (KC is the MLB leader in that stat)...it sounds good, but the reason you lead that isn't good defense, its that your terrible pitchers have allowed more runners to reach first base.
                Right, and when a guy gets four offensive rebounds on a possession, while it might be "good hustle" but for goodness sake hit a putback/ layup/ dunk. Yeesh.

                5. Situational subs....well, in an ideal world your top 5 offensive players = your top 5 defenders, but in some cases you can't help but sub. Rik Smits is an example from the Pacers I think you'd have to sub most likely on defense.

                An interesting point on that is that at younger levels, I found out a few years ago, when I had a team that I had to that kind of substitution pattern a lot with (lots of close games, a somewhat patchwork roster), that my players really really HATED that. I always talked to my players a lot during and after the season, and almost to a kid they absolutely despised being subbed in and out like that in a close game, even though doing it in my view gave us the best chance to win on that particular night. Since hearing that Ive almost stopped doing it unless its just an obvious move that you can't help but make. I never did really understand why the kids hated it so, but it is something we talked about as a program and with other coaches.
                This is the confidence issue. You've told these kids - I think you can only help in certain situations, and in other situations not only are you not helping, but you're a liability.

                Our think our need to interchange Smits and Dale Davis on a possession-by-possession basis is one of the key reasons we were regularly good enough to get to the ECFs, but only good enough to win them once.

                6. Slam dunks...totally agree.
                I figured you would.

                I'm going to try one more time on the "confidence" question:

                Example A: 5 seconds to go, we are up 1 point and the opponent has the ball at midcourt. You as a coach KNOW who will get the ball for the opponent....for fun let's just say we are playing Cleveland, and you know it will be going to LeBron. Who do you have guard him?

                You look at your team, and decide that clearly Granger is the guy with the athletic ability and defensive skill to guard him. You assign him to LBJ, but he shakes his head and indicates to you he doesn't feel he can do it, even though you as a coach strongly feel he is the best for the job.

                At the same time Armstrong pipes up and says "Coach, put me in, I know I can stop him one time for you....I have "confidence" I can do the job." Now, you as a coach have a guy in Granger who has the skill but not the "confidence" or the "experience", in DA you have a player with the "confidence" and "experience", but not the size or the skill......who do you put on him in this spot coaches?

                By my way of thinking, I use Granger and tell him to "get tough" and go guard him, and I disregard the issues discussed.....am I wrong? if the player who volunteers isn't DA but instead is someone else, does that make a difference?

                Just asking.....and thx jay for all the good responses all of the time.
                Its the coaches job to build the confidence of his (her) players - especially within his (her) system. In your example, Granger should anticipate being in the lockdown defender role, so he shouldn't shy away from it. And if LBJ scores on him and wins the game, well, great offense is generally going to be beat great defense. So you point out to Danny immediately, and reinforce it during the film sessions, that he played it correctly and LBJ still made a play. Or if he didn't play it correctly, its a teaching moment followed up with, "But you're still my guy in that situation, the team wants/ needs you to do your best."

                I happen to think confidence is one of the most important traits for any professional, in any field (sports, coaching, consulting, etc.) Not to be confused with "I am God" syndrome, overconfidence is usually a sign of delusion. But believing you are good at what you are supposed to be good at, that's important.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                  Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                  One more try on "confidence", and then Im going to fold my hand lol.

                  1. All the confidence in the world doesnt help if you don't have the talent to back it up.
                  One more point for me as well on this and then I'm done...

                  There are also plenty of players that I believe have overachieved purely based on a constant and unwavering confidence they have in themselves.

                  Guys like Sam Cassell, for instance, who really don't seem to have the physical tools or elite ability to succeed, but seemingly never fail. How is it that this guy is still one of the elite PGs in the league? He's not a great shooter, not a great passer, not a great defender, and really not particularly great at anything. Sure he's all around talented and has a high bball IQ, but that can be said of plenty of guys who haven't been a Top 10 (roughly) PG in this league for over a decade.

                  I'd argue that Sam I Am is still balling like he's balling because since he hit all those clutch shots for Hakeem his rookie year, he's been running around the league doing his cajones dance---night in and night out. Because there aren't too many people that would say Sam is the best PG in the NBA. But I'm pretty sure that he truly believes that he is.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                    Or Greg Norman. Or Chuck Knobloch. Or ARod. Or Calvin Schiraldi. Or Brad Lidge.

                    The results of losing your confidence in the NBA are generally less obvious than these baseball guys seeing as how it's easier to blend in on an NBA court. And the game is different so you don't see basketball players completely fall off the table usually (aside from Nick Anderson), but I'd say confidence is half the reason we consider people "streaky" shooters. They just don't have the cool, collected self-confidence in their jumper of a Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton and so they swing violently between thinking they are the best shooter in the world and hesitating because they're not sure if they are even taking a good shot.

                    For evidence see: Walker, Antoine; Richardson, Quentin; Jackson, Stephen; or Starks, John

                    OK, let me take a shot at this one. I'd argue that some of these guys you list do lack "confidence" in some respects.....but why is that and what should their respective managers/coaches do about it?

                    To me, Antoine Walker, Q Rich, Jax, and Starks all lack confidence because they simply arent good enough at the skill of shooting. Nobody considers those guys great pure shooters, they just dont have the ability to be that. I don't think with them its a confidence thing, I think its simply a lack of talent.

                    Some guys, its not necessarily a lack of "confidence". it could just as easily be random luck, lack of "focus", lack of "desire", lack of "concentration", lack of a hundred different things along with lack of "ability".

                    Maybe I should word it like this: Confidence: Overrated.
                    Lacking confidence: Not overrated
                    Of course, that doesnt take into account the type of player that achieves greatness out of the fear that he will fail and let his teammates down. Some players admit that fear of failure, more than the desire to achieve something, is THEIR great motivation. Intersting topic for another day.


                    I guess AROD is the hot example right now. To me, he doesnt lack "confidence" in his abilities, he is losing "concentration" while batting because he is letting the distraction of his throwing trouble get to him. And id tell you in my view that his throwing issues are are mechanical and fundamental, as no 3rd baseman in the league has a release point so low in a throw to first base...he is really dropping his arm for some reason. I wouldnt be shocked to find out after the season that he is having some sort of shoulder or back pain actually....itll be one of those things that comes out in December after the season very quietly, and most people will miss it....JMO

                    Of course, I could totally be wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245
                      I guess AROD is the hot example right now. To me, he doesnt lack "confidence" in his abilities, he is losing "concentration" while batting because he is letting the distraction of his throwing trouble get to him. And id tell you in my view that his throwing issues are are mechanical and fundamental, as no 3rd baseman in the league has a release point so low in a throw to first base...he is really dropping his arm for some reason. I wouldnt be shocked to find out after the season that he is having some sort of shoulder or back pain actually....itll be one of those things that comes out in December after the season very quietly, and most people will miss it....JMO
                      I fully admit that using ARod as an example was just a complete an utter cheap shot since I'm a Red Sox fan and those douchebags just ended our season a few weekends ago.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        So how did you deal with them after highschool?

                        Heck, that's being generous. I can't recall seeing the scenario you just described since 2nd grade.
                        Give me a break. How many times a week in the NBA do you see a shotblocker spank the ball into the stands, flex his muscles, and say with words (or body language) "don't bring that weak stuff in here"?????

                        If you block a shot and also knock the ball out of bounds and you basically have a block shot along with a turnover. Nothing at all to celebrate. A non-play. The opposing team scores on the in-bounds, and it has accomplished nothing. But the shot-blocker is still all full of himself for having supposedly "owned" someone.

                        Same thing if the deflection goes back to the opponent and they get another shot.

                        Players at every level get too full of themselves for blocking shots and that is a weakness that can be exploited.

                        I mentioned pump fakes. People think that these are used by guys posting up to waste time and allow double teams to come. While they can sometimes be useful in the half court, I think they are best used on drives. When finishing fast breaks, defenders love to try for the late save-- the type of block Tayshaun put on Reggie.

                        When a defender is trying to close ground from being out of position, they will go on first movement. They will buy the fake 95% of the time.

                        In a Y-league game one time the opposing team had some serious athletes. I'm not one of those high flyers. I took an outlet pass and drove toward the basket and a two defenders were only a step behind and gauging me for the block. I pulled up, faked, one guy flew into the basket support, I faked again and the second guy joined him in the heap, and I banked in the 5-footer. That was fun! And it's not that rare. Well, it may be rare to get two guys on the same play.

                        The lost art of the pump fake, head fake, ball fake, or a hesitation step are as beautiful and underappreciated as the shot block is overrated.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          I fully admit that using ARod as an example was just a complete an utter cheap shot since I'm a Red Sox fan and those douchebags just ended our season a few weekends ago.

                          Do the Red Sox lack "confidence" as a team in their ability to beat the Yankees?

                          Or are the Red Sox struggling because they lack "chemistry"?

                          Or is it that they don't have enough "depth" or "experience'?

                          To me, its just that they simply don't have enough talent to win this year on their team, especially on the pitching staff. Its lack of skill, not lack of any "intangible" thing.....am I wrong?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                            The lost art of the pump fake, head fake, ball fake, or a hesitation step are as beautiful and underappreciated as the shot block is overrated.
                            And the mid-range jumper and the stop-and-pop shot (why do players think there are only two places on the court to shoot from - behind the three-point line or a dunk with nothing inbetween.)

                            (And don't get me started on everyone's refusal to use the glass appropriately. A bank shot is not "luck".)
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                              I have a hard time believing that team chemistry is over rated. Maybe what happened with the Pacers is an aberration, but with the egos in professional sports I have a hard time believing that the Pacers are the only team who's locker room imploded because of chemistry.

                              And then there's depth. Maybe I missed something since I didn't read the whole thread. Are we talking about the NBA in general or the playoffs specifically? I'll go along with the notion that having quality in your top 3 players is more important that players 6-12 until one of those top 3 players goes down in the regular season and his back up has to step up. What I'm trying to say is in an 82 game season you have to have the parts to get you to the playoffs or none of it really matters.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                                1. All the confidence in the world doesnt help if you don't have the talent to back it up.

                                2. Confidence isnt something that can be inserted into you, it has to be gained by yourself and for yourself thru hard work and achievement and talent. Tiger Woods is great, Tiger Woods is confident......but he isnt GREAT BECAUSE HE IS CONFIDENT, HE IS CONFIDENT BECAUSE HE IS GREAT.
                                okay, yes. but someone like nick anderson who i mentioned earlier... he had been a great free throw shooter and then choked in the finals. after that he rarely made another one. his actual ability was significantly impacted by the amount of confidence he had. he'd done if for years in high school, college and the nba and had been one of the leagues better free throw shooters and then it was all gone he didn't have the confidence. so you can't say thats faith because he always lacked the abilities. if michael or tiger were to miss a crucial shot because they've made that shot before. nick anderson had made those free throws countless times and then couldn't hit one to save his soul when it counted. so you can't say that ability enhances confidence but the lack of confidence is mutually exclusive from ability. chuck knoblock is another good example. reggie was a great three point shooter but had he not ever been able to hit 3s at the end of a game when they could have helped the team won, he could have been a very different player. a good example of this at the moment it peyton manning - obviously one of if not arguably the best quarterback in the league but he has never been able to win the big game. its followed him through high school and college and now at the professional level. we cannot possibly know if that may have impacted the playoff performance from last year vs. the steelers.

                                AROD certainly is having concentration problems but i think he's distracted by a lack of confidence he's never felt before. and who could be surprised if he felt like that in new york. its like mike davis at IU. no matter what they do, it could never be enough. the guy had an incredible season last year winning the MVP but what people remember is that he disappeared vs. the angels.

                                3. I think some of you are mixing the concept of "confidence" vs "faith".
                                Faith is a belief without proof or history in your abilities, confidence is the cool assurance gained by having immense talent and success time after time.
                                people that make it into the NBA have confidence in their abilities, be it Walker or Starks, because the percentage of people who make it to the NBA is so tiny, some type of ability has to be there. so i'm not sure where faith is coming into the argument. faith is the pacers needing to win the game and asking a random minnesota vikings fan to shoot the winning three point shot. thats faith. yes, if mugsy bogues had to win a game only by dunking over shawn bradley, then what he would have is faith because who would know if a 5'3" guard could who has probably never dunked before dunk over a guy that is 7'6".

                                I think that we are all essentially correct in this argument by the way, and it would be a good topic to discuss in a bar somewhere over a few brewskies. Everyone is making good points and arguments, although I dont think Im doing as good a job explaining what I mean as I could be.

                                Other than Jay, do any of you have things you feel are overrated? Let's hear yours...
                                well i don't drink, mainly because i think the word "brewski" is overrated... does that count?
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X