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

Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

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

  • #46
    Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

    Originally posted by Mal View Post
    I believe the Simons and Walsh have always strived to make the Pacers a 2nd round or better playoff team. I believe that is their "line in the sand" in terms of "anything less and we're doing something wrong" in the big picture. If they're at that point, they'll play conservatively, but if they still feel they can safely try to improve upon what they have, they will. But I believe getting out of the first round is their minimum expectation in the grand scheme of things.

    Now I'll tell you two things I think in regards to that:

    1) It is unlikely we will ever win a title that way
    2) It's a hell of a lot better than mediocre, which is where I strongly disagree with the first post. Mediocrity is .500 basketball and you have about a 50/50 chance on average of making the playoffs as a 7th/8th seed. I don't think TPTB get enough credit there.

    Now people who feel it's championship or bust are doomed to be disappointed 99.9% of the time because that's just not a realistic goal, as much as we all want it to be. Even among the cities with the greatest advantages (the big cities and the big and warm cities, the ones with loose-pocket owners), think about how many teams have won the title, either recently or at all.

    Now think deeper. What all had to happen for them to win? Was it one set formula that only they pulled off correctly, or as I believe Naptown Seth pointed out, was it all relatively different formulas, and even then they don't promise a title? The answer is the latter. You can make good moves, you can have the great players, you can have the right coach, but even when ALL those things are in place, it takes a whole lot of good fortune just to get it done.

    The 2007 Spurs might not have made even the Conference Finals if Amare and Boris don't run out onto the floor.

    The mighty 2000 Lakers don't make it to the Finals if they don't mount a major Game 7 comeback (which more often than not, doesn't work out the way it did for them).

    The 2004 Pistons don't beat the Pacers if not for getting Rasheed Wallace on sale.

    The 2005 Spurs don't win if Robert Horry (not Duncan, not Ginobili, not Parker, not a special play or scheme by Popovich) doesn't slay them in Detroit.

    The 2006 Heat were all but dead and buried until their last-chance comeback in Game 3 vs a Dallas team that probably should have won that series in 5 games.

    How do you think the Lakers felt when that (I think they were even sub-.500) Rockets team upset them to move on to the Celtics back in the day? How about the 1999 Heat and the 1999 Pacers at the hands of an 8th seed New York team?

    How about the 67-win Mavs team of 2007 losing to the Warriors?

    My point in all this, and each example you can go back and forth on for sure; I'm not speaking as the know-all here; is that in the game of basketball (and in any sport really) it's NEVER as simple as making the right move, or having the right players, or getting the right coach.

    There is no magic plan to being a title contender. It is EXTREMELY hard to win a title, and to call out a franchise for not winning one is just not right or fair.

    If the powers that be were being cheap (they are not) and happy with being an over-achieving low budget team a la the Clippers most years (they are not), then I would agree with you. But that isn't the case. Could they be more aggressive? Yes. Should they? It depends on how you look at it. I feel they could do things differently, but that doesn't make it correct to say they settle for mediocrity.

    I'm rambling, and I need to do this over with more organization and clarity. But I'm tired and it will have to wait so I'll leave you with this:

    If all that Donnie Walsh and the Simons were about was playing it safe and being average, they would never have made the 2002 Bulls trade to and taken Artest in the deal. And they certainly wouldn't have re-signed him to a new deal later on. Because contrary to seemingly popular belief, they are not blind idiots. They knew everything about Artest that we know, hell they know a lot more I'm sure. BREAKING NEWS: That was a risk they took to win it all. They knew they were dealing with a nut, but they gambled on his abilities and lost. There is no disputing that as far as I can see. People want to write them off as morons who couldn't see water if they were standing on a boat, and that we the fans are the only ones with the clarity to see Artest's problems, but that's just not possible or true. Walsh knew what he was doing: Gambling. Gambling to win the thing you all demand: A championship. It didn't work, and we're still recovering. Now "wonder" why they're not hot to play with fire so soon after Ron's departure? If you think about it long enough, it's not a surprise at all.
    Things may not be heavenly in Pacer land, but man of you need to clean the mudd of your dark-tinted glasses. It's much better than you think. What's forgotten is the many levels that exist in between the only three many of you seem to think are crammed right together next to one another: Championship contender, Mediocre, and Awful.

    [/Rant]

    We both know for fact that this was not 100% the case. Much like many of the moves that the Omnipotent one has made over the years it was only after a gun was put to his head.

    If you don't know what I'm talking about let me put it this way, there was a demand that Jalen Rose be moved off of the team. It was a "it's either him or me" moment and I'll leave you to guess who made that (Not Hicks becuase he knows).

    So you can absolutely give him credit for making a good trade and then totally turning around and screwing up the aftermath of it by letting go the one player they should have kept and keeping one player that they should have gotten rid of.

    I'll be back to this thread later as I'm busy at the moment, but while I found your post eloquent and filled with good thoughts it was just important to remind everybody that the highlighted part was not some long term brillaint plan by Donnie to get us out of the brink.


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

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I'd never call out the team for not winning a title and I doubt T-Bird actually meant it that way himself. It's about the direction and positioning you put yourself in. It's about whether your vision and work are realistically pointing to being a contender or a pretender.

      Just making the playoffs is fools gold. It's a recipe for mediocrity.

      Walsh's job was done sometime in the late 90's. That was as far as his style was going to get a team. After that, accomplishments (Finals) were more in spite of him than because of him. If that wasn't clear then, it should be clear now in hindsight.

      Adam's brilliant line about the Simon's loyalty to Walsh being the ruination of this franchise is exactly right. These past 7 years should have removed all doubt.

      There are many ways to win a championship, and none of them are in Walsh's playbook. He would never risk his comfort zone for a shot at the brass rings.

      His best work is behind him. WAY behind him. He parlayed some years of a bad basketball team (before him), some draft picks, and a fanbase with nothing to lose into a team that rose to contender status under Larry Brown. But he never had the extra gear to take it forward. He single-handedly short-circuited our best chance and for that I will never forgive him. He didn't do the Bender deal because he thought we had everything to gain... he did it because he totally misjudged the situation and thought we had nothing to lose (IMO).
      Once the bar was raised, he was out of his league. To using a sporting phrase "He was playing over his head".

      His reputation should be taking a hit and rightly so. If the Simons allow this to continue (bad management) then we will soon need League Pass to watch the Pacers play. IMO it is just that bleak. And don't think I'm giving Bird a pass here either. The two-headed monster has been part of the problem, not part of the solution.

      Pacer marketing is awful. Pitiful.

      The team hasn't been a team we could be proud of since 2000 (and I hate to take anything away from Reggie's final season but it was Reggie we were proud of, not some of the cast of fools around him).

      Right now this is like watching the Titanic. We're sinking and nobody has done anything but rearrange the deck chairs and paint the railings.

      Donnie Walsh has operated this franchise under one goal:
      Make the playoffs.

      His second goals is:
      Don't do anything to risk the first goal.

      The fact that he admitted he thought the team was done in '99 and he was surprised by their 2000 Finals appearance should've been a BIG clue that he'd reached the end of his effectiveness and whatever vision he had was by then clouded.

      This team needs some dynamic vision and management to energize the fanbase. We can't put lipstick on the pig any longer. We need someone who understands 21st century Indianapolis, Indiana, sports, the NBA, and basketball in general. "Dynamic" and "Walsh" are two words rarely ever spoken together.

      As T-Bird rightly says, after a while you need to set your sights higher to see just who keeps enabling this mess that we are in. The Simons have to sign off on our management consortium. Walsh might've earned the benefit of the doubt to mishandle the team heading into 2000, but he did nothing to prove that was a fluke. Instead, he's proven that his window of effectiveness was closing shut by the end of the 90's and now he's just a bad manager being coddled for work he did 20 years ago. Wrong team and wrong time.

      The masses better start clamoring for the Simons to do something... and hope the Simons listen. If the status quo is maintained, we can wave bye to the Pacers. It's time to get our heads out of the sand and realize just how far we've fallen and what that means in the current state of pro sports in general. The sunshiner position is not part of the answer, it's a big part of the problem. The casual fans aren't going to support a loser, especially one without any rudder or vision, and the sunshiners are never going to be enough to keep the doors open on Conseco.

      Grace's position should be a wakeup to everyone.

      Either the core demands changes and accountability, and hope that the press follow suit and ownership listens (and acts), or we'll have no one else to blame but ourselves when Conseco no longer houses an NBA team.

      It's that simple.... and that serious.

      -Bball

      Sorry I saw this after my last post, but I wanted to make certain that once again Walsh is not give credit for something he did not orchastrate.

      Again you can compliment him for parlaying a backup player into the 5th pick in the draft. Then you can condem him for picking who he picked or praise him or whatever there.

      However let's not forget this one simple fact. Antonio Davis demanded a trade.

      So it's not like Donnie set back and said "I think I'll revamp the team and get some young blood in here". Well me might have thought that eventually but only after Tony said "start me or trade me".


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

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Sorry I saw this after my last post, but I wanted to make certain that once again Walsh is not give credit for something he did not orchastrate.

        Again you can compliment him for parlaying a backup player into the 5th pick in the draft. Then you can condem him for picking who he picked or praise him or whatever there.

        However let's not forget this one simple fact. Antonio Davis demanded a trade.

        So it's not like Donnie set back and said "I think I'll revamp the team and get some young blood in here". Well me might have thought that eventually but only after Tony said "start me or trade me".
        Yip... And we had several options. Of course one was to do nothing. Another was to move Smits to the bench. Another was to move Smits to another team. Another was to trade AD for an experienced player who theoretically could fit into our contending dreams. Another was to draft a player with college experience. But we opted for none of those. Somehow we managed to make one of the worst picks in Pacer history.... And it was compounded by the fact it wasn't just a blown pick, we traded a vital cog to get that pick. And we were in contention at the time.

        Plus AD would've been starting sooner rather than later anyway.

        Later compounded by a second Bender contract that could not have been more unjustified.

        -Bball
        Last edited by Bball; 06-25-2007, 03:46 AM.
        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


        • #49
          Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Yip... And we had several options. Of course one was to do nothing. Another was to move Smits to the bench. Another was to move Smits to another team. Another was to trade AD for an experienced player who theoretically could fit into our contending dreams. Another was to draft a player with college experience. But we opted for none of those. Somehow we managed to make one of the worst picks in Pacer history.... And it was compounded by the fact it wasn't just a blown pick, we traded a vital cog to get that pick. And we were in contention at the time.

          Plus AD would've been starting sooner rather than later anyway.

          Later compounded by a second Bender contract that could not have been more unjustified.

          -Bball
          I never really had a problem with drafting Bender, where I had a HUGE problem was rewarding him with an extension when he had done nothing to deserve it.

          However I also agree with your first premise. Start Tony and bring Rik off of the bench. My guess is that it could have prolonged Rik's career a year or two.

          However the main thing I wanted to emphasize though in my post was that this was not a long thought out stroke of genius by Walsh. At best it was taking lemons and making lemonaide. However as you have stated there were many other options.


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

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

            great thread... lots of food for thought.

            but i'm going with hicks first.

            Originally posted by Mal
            What all had to happen for them to win? Was it one set formula that only they pulled off correctly, or as I believe Naptown Seth pointed out, was it all relatively different formulas, and even then they don't promise a title? The answer is the latter. You can make good moves, you can have the great players, you can have the right coach, but even when ALL those things are in place, it takes a whole lot of good fortune just to get it done.
            there really isn't a surefire way to win a championship. that's why this thread could go on and on with as many opinions as there are people reading it, because really, no one knows for sure. that said, here's my 2 cents

            can it be said that one management style is likelier to win a championship than another? the spurs certainly don't have a "go for broke" mentality when it comes to managing the team. they basically keep a core of 3 players and just swap around midlevel or cheaper guys to fill the gaps - that's hardly making championship moves. and in fact their 3 good players were acquired with very little risk - duncan through lottery luck, parker and ginobili through low picks. at no point can you say the spurs risked becoming very bad while building their team. yet they've won 3 titles in the past 5 seasons.

            the heat are in the opposite extreme. they really loaded up and "went for broke" by trading for an aging shaq and then adding high chemistry risk guys in walker and payton. for this, riley was roundly criticized - up until the heat finally made a breakthrough in the playoffs and made the gamble paid off. then, riley looked liked a genius - but he would have been crucified for killing the franchise's future had the heat collapsed last year like they did this year.

            in defense of walsh, i don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with his "good enough" style. after all, it has brought us awfully close to a championship a couple of times. imo, the '97-'98 and '03-'04 teams were legitimate contenders and could have gone all the way if a few lucky breaks have gone our way. obviously that didn't happen and some people might argue that it never could have happened - but i believe that being put into a position to win is the best that management could do for a team anyway.

            Originally posted by Bball
            This team needs some dynamic vision and management to energize the fanbase. We can't put lipstick on the pig any longer. We need someone who understands 21st century Indianapolis, Indiana, sports, the NBA, and basketball in general. "Dynamic" and "Walsh" are two words rarely ever spoken together.

            As T-Bird rightly says, after a while you need to set your sights higher to see just who keeps enabling this mess that we are in. The Simons have to sign off on our management consortium. Walsh might've earned the benefit of the doubt to mishandle the team heading into 2000, but he did nothing to prove that was a fluke. Instead, he's proven that his window of effectiveness was closing shut by the end of the 90's and now he's just a bad manager being coddled for work he did 20 years ago. Wrong team and wrong time.
            here's where i'll start to criticize tptb. while i think criticizing the "good enough" style is off-base, bball in particular raises a very valid (imo) question - is donnie walsh still up with the times? is he still making judgements based on a long-past era? undeniably, the recent front office moves have not had the good results we've come to expect. do we point the finger at walsh? at newcomer larry bird? at the owners?

            tbird's "lack of vision" complaint really resonates with me, especially given how things went last season. it's clear in hindsight that larry bird had a vision for an uptempo team that, one way or another, just wasn't shared/implemented by others in the organization. not saying that bird's view is necessarily correct, but he was brought in to run the team so imo he should be given that chance.

            despite defending walsh earlier in this post, i'm ready for new management. not sure whether or not larry bird counts as new management; by most indications, this year will be the first that he is really running the team - and some might suspect donnie will still be pulling strings in the background. does bball's 2-headed monster live on? would it require ownership actively stepping in to resolve this as tbird seems to think? i guess we'll find out.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Yip... And we had several options. Of course one was to do nothing. Another was to move Smits to the bench. Another was to move Smits to another team. Another was to trade AD for an experienced player who theoretically could fit into our contending dreams. Another was to draft a player with college experience. But we opted for none of those. Somehow we managed to make one of the worst picks in Pacer history.... And it was compounded by the fact it wasn't just a blown pick, we traded a vital cog to get that pick. And we were in contention at the time.

              Plus AD would've been starting sooner rather than later anyway.

              Later compounded by a second Bender contract that could not have been more unjustified.

              -Bball
              To add to what Bball said without saying, At the time AD was traded Smits' feet were bothering him again and he was openly talking about retiring. He also had a REALLY big contract. If I was Indy, I'd have done everything I could to encourage him to walk off into the sunset and keep AD. Lots of people blame AD for losing in the 1999 ECF to the Knicks but I blame Smits. After Ewing went down the tallest defender we could put on him was a 6-9 PF with a 6" vertical - we couldn't even influence his jump shot. Smits should have averaged 30 that series.

              However, DW said he was surprised by Smits' retirement in the summer of 2000 and that was a big reason behind the team re-tooling. That was a complete load of hooey since Rik had been talking about it for some time.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                Originally posted by Mal View Post




                If all that Donnie Walsh and the Simons were about was playing it safe and being average, they would never have made the 2002 Bulls trade to and taken Artest in the deal. And they certainly wouldn't have re-signed him to a new deal later on. Because contrary to seemingly popular belief, they are not blind idiots. They knew everything about Artest that we know, hell they know a lot more I'm sure. BREAKING NEWS: That was a risk they took to win it all. They knew they were dealing with a nut, but they gambled on his abilities and lost. There is no disputing that as far as I can see. People want to write them off as morons who couldn't see water if they were standing on a boat, and that we the fans are the only ones with the clarity to see Artest's problems, but that's just not possible or true. Walsh knew what he was doing: Gambling. Gambling to win the thing you all demand: A championship. It didn't work, and we're still recovering. Now "wonder" why they're not hot to play with fire so soon after Ron's departure? If you think about it long enough, it's not a surprise at all.

                Things may not be heavenly in Pacer land, but man of you need to clean the mudd of your dark-tinted glasses. It's much better than you think. What's forgotten is the many levels that exist in between the only three many of you seem to think are crammed right together next to one another: Championship contender, Mediocre, and Awful.

                [/Rant]


                Great post Mal.


                Let me add one thing about Bender - the drafting of Bender. Yes AD requested to be traded so the Pacers traded him. Could they have traded AD for a nice veteran player who certainly would have been more helpful than Bender was in his first season. Of course they could. But I've always said to get a "great player" you often have to gamble. And I believe TPTB decided that Bender had a chance to be a great player. (Don't forget there were strong rumors that the Bulls were going to take Bender number 1 and that none other than Jerry West was frantically trying to get into the top of the draft just to get Bender. Obviously for whatever reason Bender didn't work out. But the safe pick would have been Wally - it would have been the scared pick though.

                I believe Walsh ultimately drafted Bender because he truly believed that Bender had a chance for greatness. I've always said that I'd rather take a player who has a 30% chance of being great then to take a player who has a 70% chance of being a good player. I'm using Wally vs Bender.

                So did Walsh draft Bender because he wanted to make sure he made the playoffs the next 5 years - NO, if he wanted to just make the playoffs he would have drafted Wally - he drafted Bender because Walsh thought Bender had superstar potential and we all know superstars win championships.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Great post Mal.




                  I believe Walsh ultimately drafted Bender because he truly believed that Bender had a chance for greatness. I've always said that I'd rather take a player who has a 30% chance of being great then to take a player who has a 70% chance of being a good player. I'm using Wally vs Bender.

                  So did Walsh draft Bender because he wanted to make sure he made the playoffs the next 5 years - NO, if he wanted to just make the playoffs he would have drafted Wally - he drafted Bender because Walsh thought Bender had superstar potential and we all know superstars win championships.


                  I'm not sure I believe it's a gamble to take a player that you think has a 30% chance of greatness... because that should mean at least a 70% chance that he will be a 'good' player no matter what (using your numbers here).

                  My first impression of Bender was "Is this it?". I surmised rather quickly he had no chance of being anything but maybe 'instant offense' off the bench. And even that would be as a project.

                  Players either have 'it' or they don't and Bender never had 'it'.

                  Also, there are gambles and there are risks. We took a major risk in the Bender wranglings due to the situation at the time.

                  But all that said, this is just one incident in a long line of goofs that Walsh has strung together in the past 10 years or so.

                  BTW... Anyone want to complain about Walsh leaving Byron Scott unprotected in the expansion draft?

                  -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


                  • #54
                    Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    Exactly and that new ownership will also be called Simon but their names will not be Mel or Herb.
                    Or Larry Bird and his group.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      I believe the Simons and Walsh have always strived to make the Pacers a 2nd round or better playoff team. I believe that is their "line in the sand" in terms of "anything less and we're doing something wrong" in the big picture. If they're at that point, they'll play conservatively, but if they still feel they can safely try to improve upon what they have, they will. But I believe getting out of the first round is their minimum expectation in the grand scheme of things.

                      Now I'll tell you two things I think in regards to that:

                      1) It is unlikely we will ever win a title that way
                      2) It's a hell of a lot better than mediocre, which is where I strongly disagree with the first post. Mediocrity is .500 basketball and you have about a 50/50 chance on average of making the playoffs as a 7th/8th seed. I don't think TPTB get enough credit there.

                      Now people who feel it's championship or bust are doomed to be disappointed 99.9% of the time because that's just not a realistic goal, as much as we all want it to be. Even among the cities with the greatest advantages (the big cities and the big and warm cities, the ones with loose-pocket owners), think about how many teams have won the title, either recently or at all.

                      Now think deeper. What all had to happen for them to win? Was it one set formula that only they pulled off correctly, or as I believe Naptown Seth pointed out, was it all relatively different formulas, and even then they don't promise a title? The answer is the latter. You can make good moves, you can have the great players, you can have the right coach, but even when ALL those things are in place, it takes a whole lot of good fortune just to get it done.

                      The 2007 Spurs might not have made even the Conference Finals if Amare and Boris don't run out onto the floor.

                      The mighty 2000 Lakers don't make it to the Finals if they don't mount a major Game 7 comeback (which more often than not, doesn't work out the way it did for them).

                      The 2004 Pistons don't beat the Pacers if not for getting Rasheed Wallace on sale.

                      The 2005 Spurs don't win if Robert Horry (not Duncan, not Ginobili, not Parker, not a special play or scheme by Popovich) doesn't slay them in Detroit.

                      The 2006 Heat were all but dead and buried until their last-chance comeback in Game 3 vs a Dallas team that probably should have won that series in 5 games.

                      How do you think the Lakers felt when that (I think they were even sub-.500) Rockets team upset them to move on to the Celtics back in the day? How about the 1999 Heat and the 1999 Pacers at the hands of an 8th seed New York team?

                      How about the 67-win Mavs team of 2007 losing to the Warriors?

                      My point in all this, and each example you can go back and forth on for sure; I'm not speaking as the know-all here; is that in the game of basketball (and in any sport really) it's NEVER as simple as making the right move, or having the right players, or getting the right coach.

                      There is no magic plan to being a title contender. It is EXTREMELY hard to win a title, and to call out a franchise for not winning one is just not right or fair.

                      If the powers that be were being cheap (they are not) and happy with being an over-achieving low budget team a la the Clippers most years (they are not), then I would agree with you. But that isn't the case. Could they be more aggressive? Yes. Should they? It depends on how you look at it. I feel they could do things differently, but that doesn't make it correct to say they settle for mediocrity.

                      I'm rambling, and I need to do this over with more organization and clarity. But I'm tired and it will have to wait so I'll leave you with this:

                      If all that Donnie Walsh and the Simons were about was playing it safe and being average, they would never have made the 2002 Bulls trade to and taken Artest in the deal. And they certainly wouldn't have re-signed him to a new deal later on. Because contrary to seemingly popular belief, they are not blind idiots. They knew everything about Artest that we know, hell they know a lot more I'm sure. BREAKING NEWS: That was a risk they took to win it all. They knew they were dealing with a nut, but they gambled on his abilities and lost. There is no disputing that as far as I can see. People want to write them off as morons who couldn't see water if they were standing on a boat, and that we the fans are the only ones with the clarity to see Artest's problems, but that's just not possible or true. Walsh knew what he was doing: Gambling. Gambling to win the thing you all demand: A championship. It didn't work, and we're still recovering. Now "wonder" why they're not hot to play with fire so soon after Ron's departure? If you think about it long enough, it's not a surprise at all.

                      Things may not be heavenly in Pacer land, but man of you need to clean the mudd of your dark-tinted glasses. It's much better than you think. What's forgotten is the many levels that exist in between the only three many of you seem to think are crammed right together next to one another: Championship contender, Mediocre, and Awful.

                      [/Rant]
                      I agree 100%. Nice post.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                        1) It is unlikely we will ever win a title that way
                        With this point Mal, I completely, 100% disagree. They were extremely close to winning it all in 03-04, they had the BEST RECORD vs Western Conference teams that year, yes better than any West teams as well and better than Detroit had. Had they been flipped with Minny, meaning had then played 52 games in the West and only 30 vs the East they still would have had the same record based on their winning PCT that season, ie home court throughout the West playoffs.

                        The Pistons added Sheed and thanks to a blocked layup by Prince maybe turned the momentum in what was an extremely even matchup of teams.

                        In both 98 and 99 they also had extremely legit chances to win it all, and obviously being in game 6 vs LA in the 2000 Finals proves that they were in it (including outscoring them for the series).

                        WE AS INDY FANS have this "oh well, it's just us, that's the best we can do" and if you don't believe me take a time machine back to the start of this last seasons NFL playoffs. You know, the whole "well Dungy is nice and can win games, but he lacks what it takes to win it all", same with 18.

                        It's sports and it ain't a solo gig. The other side wants to win too and if things are close then the slightest misstep or bad break ends it for you. You can't read the tea leaves of those bad breaks and identify some pattern of winner vs loser. You see chumps at the horse track losing their shirts trying to do that.

                        Look, Horry has been on a ton of title teams, and he's made big shots to help those teams win, but he's not really the magic bullet. That 95 Rockets team pulled one out of their rear ends to salvage that season, they weren't "strong" going into the playoffs...certainly you never want to have to win on the road just to survive.

                        These events are one-shot deals basically. As good as you are anything can go just a tad wrong and spoil it. If you play 5 Jordan clones vs 5 Jordan clones, 1 of those teams WILL LOSE, 100%. That's the definition of how the game is played, you go till someone loses. I've just said that the 2 teams are truly identical players, yet somehow one is better???

                        Of course not.

                        If you are in round 2 you might win it all, and IMO that's a fact most years. I'll adjust for the unbalance in leagues from year to year (all sports) and say that maybe the top 6-8 overall have a shot then, even if only 2-3 are on one side of the bracket. But when you are Indy and you are in the ECF, you can win it all. You aren't just "doing okay, but not willing to go the extra step". You took the extra step, BUT SO DID THE OTHER TEAM. If either of you lose it suddenly discounts that? Silly.

                        That's why I say that the 2nd round goal is a legit path to the title. Get to the dance, then lets see. It's the best any team can hope for. As you point out Mal, the Mavs sure had a worse chance of winning it all than the Warriors did once round 2 started.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                          Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                          Comparing the Colts and Pacers now is unfair. How many years were the Colts mired in medocrity? Did Jimmy Irsay suddenly become this great owner? Where was this perceived Jim Irsay during those LONG years? He was here - always was. It wasn't until fate smiled on the Colts in the form of Peyton Manning that in some eyes Jimmy miraculously became a great owner. If you were around in '94 or '00 and the Colts were around in its 1-13 years at the same time - this whole conversation would be reversed.
                          Agreed, and I know you remember how Jimmy tried to swing for the fences with the Dickerson trade or giving up a #1 pick for a hobbled Fredd Young because Jim wanted to make a spash and name for himself. Nothing against Jim Irsay because he really is a nice guy. It's not all luck, but you do have to have some of it to win.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                            In Jim Irsay's defense he had to get rid of everything he learned from his dad.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                              Great post by tbird as usual.

                              I'd like to take up one point, which is that I think for JOB to put "making the playoffs" as his first specific goal at this point of his tenure is the right thing to do.

                              If you believe that much of the responsibility of the last year or two rests on Rick's shoulders, you have to believe:

                              - that a new coach can be more successful with the same pieces
                              - that the pieces we had were used improperly
                              - therefore, any information an outsider coming into the team as coach has about the performance of the existing players is faulty because it represents the results of their misuse.

                              Given this, I think it behooves the new coaching staff to feel more comfortable with the pieces available before trying to form any more concrete vision of the immediate direction for the team.

                              JOB has expressed his style of play in pretty specific terms, and has set the minimum bar for his first season. As long as we get substance in updates at various points in the season (summer league, draft, FA day, camp), I think we're looking pretty positive.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                                Comparing the NBA to the NFL, in general, is completely wrong.

                                The NFL is America's sport through and through, not just here in Indiana. The ratings for the Finals didn't even match those of ratings for an Oakland/another suck team on a Sunday night game. (It was in a Bill Simmons article last week. I'll try to find it.)

                                The Colts are going to be loved more than the Pacers regardless, because the difference in the sport. The NFL plays one game a week, whereas the NBA plays around 3 games a week. Each game for the NFL, for your favorite team, is THE thing to watch because you have to wait a whole nother week for the next one. You miss a NBA game, you get to see another one the next night. Whoopdee do, you missed one.

                                Conclusion? The NFL is a better marketing league all around, and not just here in Indiana. There are more Miami Dolphin fans than Miami Heat fans. There are more Dallas Cowboy fans than there are San Antonio Spurs fans, and so forth.

                                The only exception might be the Detroit Lions, because who actually wants to watch them?
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X