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

PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

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

  • #31
    Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

    Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
    Seth, I think we argee then.

    Donnie Walsh is a better-than-average GM/ President.

    He might even be a top-ten GM/ President.

    His team is consistently in the top 55% of the eastern conference.

    I won't dispute any of *those* statements.

    ===========

    And let's quit acting like it took them any time whatsoever to recover from Clark's injury. That team had too many forwards (Clark, Tisdale, Chuck, Herb) and if not for Clark's injury, Chuck would not have had a chance to lead that team to the playoffs as a rookie. With Clark Kellogg piling up his usual but ineffective 20 and 10, that might've been another 25-win team if he didn't get hurt.

    Stipo's injury certainly came at a very bad time, but at least Rik was a rookie. Just think how bad it could've been if he had been unable to play the season before that... Stuart Grey, anyone?
    First let me say that I like DW very much. Next he has not been able to get this team much into the playoffs which is on him. All the stats that Seth produces to suggest that DW is better than average are true but the stat that DW can't produce that would be the difference maker is trading for or drafting a true star. Boston, LA, Detroit, San Antonio, etc. all have or have had their true stars, that one individual who makes them more than just an entry level playoff team. We just haven't had one of these types and the closest we have had is Reggie who rarely even made the All star team. Until DW or LB get the pacers that one player the stats won't change-on and out of the playoffs.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

      What about the trades and signing that didn't happen (but were available)? How many of those have went public and what side of the ledger do we put those on?

      Walsh had to go out of his way not to get Barkley back in the day with Barkley wanting to come here and Reggie lobbying for him. Would that have been the Batman and Robin that we just never seemed to solidify?

      What trade offers have we turned down for the likes of Artest?... or Bender... or JO... or.... Smits... or Tinsley... or Sjax... or... 'insert player here'???

      What about not extending Reggie and MJax and instead than letting their contracts expire?

      What about the handling of the Dale Davis situation when his agent let his FA option lapse? Did we really handle that properly?

      What about the handling of Byron Scott and leaving him unprotected in an expansion draft?

      What about later expansion drafts and how we handled them?

      What about how we played our cards in the aftermath of the Mow Down in Motown?Did we handle it right with the league? Did we handle it right with the public? Did we handle it right with 'replacement' players?

      And what other trades were available for AD? And even if you argue trading AD for the 5th pick in the draft was genius... tTaking BENDER at the 5th pick was stupid then, looked worse later, and looks criminal now.

      -Bball
      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


      • #33
        Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        What I find interesting is how much the Walsh Warriors have quieted over the years. It used to be one mention of any negative and you were greeted with pitchforks and people ready to fall on their swords for him. There was no end to the excuses and apologies made in his behalf. Now at least there's a reasonable give and take on the subject.

        Maybe it's the difference of here and there. Or maybe it's the fact the end is near and everyone has accepted it. Or maybe nobody cares much anymore...

        -Bball
        Or maybe that whole thing was just a perception? Except for the few with blind spots on both sides, most posters acknowledged the good and the bad - it was just the overall result we disagreed on.

        Recently both sides were faced with some reality checks - I think the Walsh Warriors had to face major errors in judgement with the whole Artest situation, while the Donnie Do-Nothings had to admit that there was some serious risk-taking going on even though it backfired in our faces.

        "What have you done for me lately" applies as well, of course.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
          With Clark Kellogg piling up his usual but ineffective 20 and 10
          As opposed to JO?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
            First let me say that I like DW very much. Next he has not been able to get this team much into the playoffs which is on him. All the stats that Seth produces to suggest that DW is better than average are true but the stat that DW can't produce that would be the difference maker is trading for or drafting a true star. Boston, LA, Detroit, San Antonio, etc. all have or have had their true stars, that one individual who makes them more than just an entry level playoff team. We just haven't had one of these types and the closest we have had is Reggie who rarely even made the All star team. Until DW or LB get the pacers that one player the stats won't change-on and out of the playoffs.
            Jermaine O'Neal

            Aleady more AS games than Reggie if he makes it this year. Has gone every year since he became the main star in his 2nd season with Indy. More double digit rebound seasons than Dale Davis who made the AS game on that and defense alone. Quickly heading to the top of the Pacers shot blocking list. Has been an 18-20 ppg player the entire time, something that got Rik on the AS team by itself (no def, no reb, weak blocker for height).


            If you dismiss JO because of clutch then you have to re-admit Reggie. His AS games were more limited due to Mike and the market than any statistical failure.

            Bird, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Robinson...they didn't do it alone. And they were all DRAFTED WITH HIGH PICKS. The Pacers blew it with Bender and his injuries (and likely wouldn't have been a star anyway), but did draft Rik #2 after Manning (there's an injury bust) and just before Charles Smith and Chris Morris.

            DW also took Chuck Person 4th after Bias and Washburn (crazy level of bust there) and just before Kenny Walker and Bedford....which almost makes up for him taking Drieling instead of Rodman with the 2nd round pick!

            McCloud (#7) has been pointed out, but again the 2 picks prior to him were J.R. Reid and Stacey King and the 2 after him were Randy White and Tom Hammonds, so it's not like he looks very bad in that window even.


            Not only that but he did trade for AS players Detlef Schrempf, Antonio (after Indy, but in his prime with Pacers), and Ron Artest, as well as Mark Jackson.


            I hear this "he never made the moves" argument and I just don't get it. What moves did Chicago make? They drafted Jordan because he was on the board. They won in spite of Rodman's distractions after letting the more stable and reliable Horace Grant go.

            And for all this you have people bringing up Barkley (didn't win title in PHX OR HOU, despite being paired with other AS) or AI (we'll see, but most doubt a title there). Should the Pacers have gotten in the Grant Hill FA sweepstakes? Did you really want the Pacers to TRADE REGGIE and Dale for Karl Malone?

            My point there is that other teams have chased down big time difference makers and had nothing come from it, most young players in draft trades don't become Kobe. To me DW has made a lot of strong moves to keep AS caliber talent on the court pretty consistantly, often pairing 2 AS together in the same season.

            The ONLY REASON we don't see them as difference makers is because they didn't win it all. Pacers make that final shot in regulation of game 4 of the 2000 Finals and go on to win game 7 in LA then suddenly this isn't a problem. Kukoc comes up short on a couple of shots in game 7 in Chicago and this isn't a problem.

            It's not a lack of stars or talent or difference makers. It's a case of running into other difference makers just as good. Any GM in the NBA would have taken Reggie off the Pacers' hands specifically because he was a difference maker.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              As opposed to JO?
              Hater (I kid... I kid...)

              As time goes on, this is may prove to be right. But in JO's defense, his fewest wins a season (whether he played significant minutes or not) is 41 (unless you see the "35" from the lockout year and get the wrong idea about a 0.700 team.)

              Clark played three full seasons, with a 20-62 record (20.1 and 10.3 ppg and rpg, respectively), 26-56 where his scoring and rebounding each dropped by 1 to 19 and 9, and 22-60 (19 and 9 again.)

              He got hurt in season #4, played only 19 games (averaging 18 and 9). The team improved slightly to 26-56. And then he played four unsuccessful "comeback" games early in the turnaround season.

              Say what you want about JO's lack of playoff success, but his 20-10 are getting his team to 0.500 and into the playoffs. Unlike Clark, or his modern-era clone, Shareef Abdur-Raheem (who finally made the playoffs in a reduced role). And in recent reasons, I think JO's 20-10 has a lot to do with getting the team UP to 0.500, in spite of W-L evidence without him on the court that appears to be contradictory but is inconclusive or incomplete at best.
              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


              • #37
                Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                As I said at the forum party, comparing JO with Rahim is unfair to both players. JO is much better - unless you think defense means nothing and even then JO is better.

                I remember Clark Kellogg - I remember him well. But he's not as good as JO. Log's defense wasn't very good. I liked Clark a lot though - too bad he had a knee injury - too bad he played in the early 80's because if he had the same knee injury today he'd still be playing

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  McCloud (#7) has been pointed out, but again the 2 picks prior to him were J.R. Reid and Stacey King and the 2 after him were Randy White and Tom Hammonds, so it's not like he looks very bad in that window even.
                  That's a very selective window to pick from...

                  Pooh at ten (was a bad choice, too, but better than McCloud at 7)
                  Mookie at 12
                  Timmy H at 14
                  Even Dana Barros at 16 and BJ Armstrong at 18 would've been better choices at #7 than McCloud.

                  Donnie took a gamble to convert McCloud into the next Magic. If he were really going to be the next Magic, he would've been gone by #7, don'tcha think? Mookie and Tim, in particular, were "known" commodites that we passed on that turned out to have very successful NBA careers.

                  Of course, Danny Ferry went #2 in that draft, so McCloud was hardly the biggest gaffe that season.

                  But really, how was Tim Hardaway not a lottery pick? Because he was a UTEP guy? I've never understood that.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    As I said at the forum party, comparing JO with Rahim is unfair to both players. JO is much better - unless you think defense means nothing and even then JO is better.

                    I remember Clark Kellogg - I remember him well. But he's not as good as JO. Log's defense wasn't very good. I liked Clark a lot though - too bad he had a knee injury - too bad he played in the early 80's because if he had the same knee injury today he'd still be playing
                    In the early 80s, I liked Clark because I didn't know any better. I remember being pumped up because he was speaking at a basketball camp I attended (his speach was actually the day we drafted Tinsdale, and people were asking him if Tinsdale was a 6'7" center or if the Pacers were going to try to convert him to forward. Clark joking said, "I hope not", since he, of course, was one of the starting forwards. It was quite funny.

                    By the end of the 1986-87 playoffs, watching Chuck and Dominique duke it out, I had a completely different perspective of a "good" NBA forward. And it wasn't Clark. Nor Tisdale. And it certainly wasn't Herb.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                      I disagree on the value of Kellogg. "Time to recover" is like saying it didn't take the Bulls any time to recover from the loss of Jordan because they had Pippen also as the swing/big SG spot and still won at a high rate.

                      Clark and Stipo are the vets that remain while you influx young talent to supplement them and take the team from blah to seriously competitive. Imagine Reggie getting injured after year 3. It would be BEFORE the clutch games in NY, before the legend, before much of anything.

                      It would just be a stats guy that didn't play much defense and never led the team anywhere. His loss wouldn't have really held back a team that had other stars like Detlef, Dale and Rik.

                      I'm not saying Clark was Reggie to be, but I am saying he was Detlef or Rik or Antonio. Having him and Stipo would have made that late 80s lineup A LOT better. I think it very likely would have helped Rik progress with Stipo there (just look at his own progression). Kellogg was a much better player than Tisdale and definitely would have limited his PT, maybe even made him tradeable.

                      Imagine the 89-90 team being:
                      Vern, Reggie, Chuck, Detlef, Rik
                      but with Stipo and Clark instead of Tank and Sanders

                      In fact having Stipo and Clark probably changes that Kings trade (Tank/Wittman) and see Tisdale used to get another PG instead.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                        Jay, I wasn't trying to be selective, but rather to look at the picks in that area. Maybe other teams would have targeted those later pick gems even if they were top 5, but you and I both know that's a big maybe at best.

                        Mookie was an unfortunate pass, but Skillz I think surprised a lot of people. First his assists were running around 6 per at UTEP, his 3P% only came around his final year, and even when he hit the NBA I think the case could be made that his assists ran 1-2 higher than "real" thanks to the high octane offense he was paired with (they gave up 109 that year!).

                        Certainly he was a great player, don't get me wrong, but what he became caught people off-guard. Who saw 36% from 3 after his first season he went 27%?

                        Missed pick by Donnie in any case. I just don't see it as a disaster. To me DW minimzes his errors and gets more out of situations than you would expect usually.

                        When the list is Haskin, Bender, and McCloud as the biggest draft mistakes I don't see it as all that bad.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Jermaine O'Neal
                          The ONLY REASON we don't see them as difference makers is because they didn't win it all. Pacers make that final shot in regulation of game 4 of the 2000 Finals and go on to win game 7 in LA then suddenly this isn't a problem. Kukoc comes up short on a couple of shots in game 7 in Chicago and this isn't a problem.

                          It's not a lack of stars or talent or difference makers. It's a case of running into other difference makers just as good. Any GM in the NBA would have taken Reggie off the Pacers' hands specifically because he was a difference maker.
                          The point I was making is as follows: The job of any GM is to win the big one and that means perhaps going through sub par years. It's just not enough to be above .500 year after year. That doesn't buy respect in any field. Thus I ask how is it that teams that have won big such as LA, Boston, Detroit, Chicago can retool and then get bigger stars yet once again? For example how did LA wind up after all those great teams with Kobe and perhaps now Bynum? How does Detroit coming off the Bad Boys get back in the game with Grant Hill, then the team they have had the last few years. How did Boston wind up with Pierce and even Walker after the Bird years? Have we had anyone of the caliber of real stars? No. It isn't just drafting the right player but trading players for draft picks that will give those teams the future stars they need. Chicago walked away with the lowly Knicks first two draft picks for Eddie Curry. Eddie Curry is no star himself. So while DW has done a credible job and is to be respected he hasn't put the team in the running for the big one with the exception of perhaps one year.

                          Reggie and JO are good but not the difference makers I'm talking about.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            I disagree on the value of Kellogg. "Time to recover" is like saying it didn't take the Bulls any time to recover from the loss of Jordan because they had Pippen also as the swing/big SG spot and still won at a high rate.

                            Clark and Stipo are the vets that remain while you influx young talent to supplement them and take the team from blah to seriously competitive. Imagine Reggie getting injured after year 3. It would be BEFORE the clutch games in NY, before the legend, before much of anything.

                            It would just be a stats guy that didn't play much defense and never led the team anywhere. His loss wouldn't have really held back a team that had other stars like Detlef, Dale and Rik.

                            I'm not saying Clark was Reggie to be, but I am saying he was Detlef or Rik or Antonio. Having him and Stipo would have made that late 80s lineup A LOT better. I think it very likely would have helped Rik progress with Stipo there (just look at his own progression). Kellogg was a much better player than Tisdale and definitely would have limited his PT, maybe even made him tradeable.

                            Imagine the 89-90 team being:
                            Vern, Reggie, Chuck, Detlef, Rik
                            but with Stipo and Clark instead of Tank and Sanders

                            In fact having Stipo and Clark probably changes that Kings trade (Tank/Wittman) and see Tisdale used to get another PG instead.
                            Chuck would've made Clark tradeable, and yes, I'd rather have traded him than watched him retire so young.

                            We're stuck playing "could have been's" with Clark. I still say the best comparison ever for Clark is Shareef. Likeable player and person, certainly skilled. But no matter how much he scored or rebounded, Clark did not help his teams win. He and Herb, both future lottery picks, combined to go 0.500 at Ohio State against college-level competition. Of course they combined to be bottom-of-the-league caliber against the rest of the NBA.

                            60% of the 1986-87 starting lineup was unchanged (Vern, Herb, Stipo). The sixth man (Tinsdale) was the same. The 7th and 8th men were the same (Ron Anderson and Clint Richardson).

                            The change from 26 wins to 41 wins was the replacement of the coach and the "top" player. John Long helped a lot, too, don't get me wrong. It wasn't all

                            erson: (EDIT - hey, where did it go... now I'm depressed. )

                            (obligatory ... now back to your reguarly scheduled thread...)

                            And I still think the Tisdale for Tank and Wittman trade was one of Donnie's best. But I'm admittedly a big fan of Tank Thompson, too (and anyone else associated with the 1991 team except McCloud, of course).
                            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: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              For example how did LA wind up after all those great teams with Kobe and perhaps now Bynum?
                              Because Kobe was going to refuse to play for the team that had his draft rights and forced a trade to a marquee (read "big market") team? Yeah, the Pacers would have done well in that draft position.

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              How does Detroit coming off the Bad Boys get back in the game with Grant Hill, then the team they have had the last few years.
                              Oh, I missed the championships Detroit won with Grant. The recent championship they won was proof Dumars is a great GM but doesn't diminish Donnie.

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              How did Boston wind up with Pierce and even Walker after the Bird years?
                              What years did Pierce and Walker get their rings with Boston? I must have forgotten those as well.

                              With the exception of Detroit's "playing it right" championship (which I would say the Pacers were in contention for and couldn't get over the hump - not the fault of the combination that Donnie put together but a failure of execution on the floor and - arguably - on the bench), the other examples you give are either out of Donnie's control or didn't yield the championship results you seem to be blaming Donnie for not getting.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: PD Party Follow-up - Peck gets the Walsh W-L record (and doesn't like it)

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                Because Kobe was going to refuse to play for the team that had his draft rights and forced a trade to a marquee (read "big market") team? Yeah, the Pacers would have done well in that draft position.



                                Oh, I missed the championships Detroit won with Grant. The recent championship they won was proof Dumars is a great GM but doesn't diminish Donnie.



                                What years did Pierce and Walker get their rings with Boston? I must have forgotten those as well.

                                With the exception of Detroit's "playing it right" championship (which I would say the Pacers were in contention for and couldn't get over the hump - not the fault of the combination that Donnie put together but a failure of execution on the floor and - arguably - on the bench), the other examples you give are either out of Donnie's control or didn't yield the championship results you seem to be blaming Donnie for not getting.
                                How many championships has Detroit won in the last 20 years and how many have the Pacers? Grant Hill and Pierce were only examples of the type of player I'm talking about, not that he had to bring them a championship. Do you think we have players of that caliber? Finally if you want to write on the pacer tombstone that they once made it to the championship series well that just sucks as an epitaph.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X