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

Is Nate the right Coach?

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

  • Is Nate the right Coach?

    Ever since the playoffs ended for the pacers we have seen many offseason threads with discussions on free agents, Kemba, and trades. We haven't seen many discussion on Nate Mcmillan. My questions for everyone is, moving forward are you confident in Nate's ability to be the coach of this team? Nate did sign an extension early in the season so we at least have him for another year.

    As we all know the pacers run a slow offense that focuses on good shots. Unlike many of the other teams in this league we would rather take a lightly contested mid range shot over a contested 3 point shot. With that being said the pacers are at the bottom of the league in 3 point attempts per game, but near the top of the league in percentages. The pacers do have some players that can hit the 3 at a high clip, but if you look at players such as Myles, DC and bogey they are taking way less 3 point attempts then some of the counterparts on other teams. A good example of this is Myles is near a 40 percent 3 point shooter, but he takes less threes than jokic and Embiid who both shoot at about 30%. Brook Lopez more than doubles myles attempts per game. I've seen posts about myles being misused. Is this on the coaching staff, or is this Myles fault?

    One positive with Nate is that he has this team playing great defense. We are near near the top of the league in most defensive categories and he turned Myles into a DPOY candidate. The players seem to like playing for Nate.

    I know everyone has a different ideal situation, but let's pretend that going into the offseason your ideal situation happens. Would you be confident with Nate leading that team going forward?

    I'm really on the fence with this one so I would like to see what everyone's thoughts are on Nate.

  • #2
    He's a great coach to get teams to overperform during the regular season. He's a good leader, and the players have clearly bought into him at a high level. He's a large part of our culture.

    I believe he is not the ideal coach if you want a high draft pick or expect to contend.

    I'm ok with him being here, even though I'd prefer to be in either of the latter scenarios above.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nate can get the players to buy in. He has mostly set roles that can get his players comfortable and thus can help make them consistent. Under Nate, we have generally been a team that does a couple of things (defense, transition scoring, taking good shots etc.) consistently well. He also has the team recognizing mismatches and attacking them. Attacking mismatches was basically our whole offense after Dipo went down. All in all, we could do a lot worse than Nate.

      But he also has his weaknesses. He won't stray outside his comfort zone. He won't experiment a lot with systems and schemes. He won't give enough playing time to the younger players. He won't start Domas alongside Myles. He will overplay his veterans even if they aren't producing. And the biggest weakness of all for Nate is the playoffs. His playoff record is 17-32. His teams have made the playoffs 8 times and he has only advanced past the first round once (the 04-05 SuperSonics).

      So, if we want to take the next step as a franchise then no, Nate isn't the right coach. The only way that a team with limited resources like us can take the next step is to depart from the norm. It is to try something that other teams aren't trying. It is to zig where everyone else zags. Nate can't do that. Only a handful of coaches can do that and Nate isn't one of them.
      People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Seen no difference between him and Frank. Honestly I think the defense was slightly better under Frank and Frank pushed for more rebounding. (Also I don't remember Frank's teams being this bad at free throws). But both use eggshell timers for subs. Both have bad offensive schemes. We need to find a coach that is a little more creative.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Nate can get the players to buy in. He has mostly set roles that can get his players comfortable and thus can help make them consistent. Under Nate, we have generally been a team that does a couple of things (defense, transition scoring, taking good shots etc.) consistently well. He also has the team recognizing mismatches and attacking them. Attacking mismatches was basically our whole offense after Dipo went down. All in all, we could do a lot worse than Nate.

          But he also has his weaknesses. He won't stray outside his comfort zone. He won't experiment a lot with systems and schemes. He won't give enough playing time to the younger players. He won't start Domas alongside Myles. He will overplay his veterans even if they aren't producing. And the biggest weakness of all for Nate is the playoffs. His playoff record is 17-32. His teams have made the playoffs 8 times and he has only advanced past the first round once (the 04-05 SuperSonics).

          So, if we want to take the next step as a franchise then no, Nate isn't the right coach. The only way that a team with limited resources like us can take the next step is to depart from the norm. It is to try something that other teams aren't trying. It is to zig where everyone else zags. Nate can't do that. Only a handful of coaches can do that and Nate isn't one of them.
          KP needs to step in and take away his security blankets.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by owl View Post

            KP needs to step in and take away his security blankets.
            KP signing Wes Mathews and guaranteeing him a starting spot was a big and IMO a bad security blanket that KP gave Nate. All Wes did was take away developmental minutes from Sumner and Holiday. At this point I'm wondering if KP is giving Nate the instructions on we want to win as many games as we can now even at the expense of playing our young guys, or Is KP wanting to get his young guys some playing time and Nate thinks they are just not ready.

            If Nate is not the right coach then what should we do? At the time when we hired Nate I was hoping that the pacers would bring in a new voice at coach. I knew nothing about him, but the hot name at the time was Ettore Messina. I figured he is a guy off the Popovich tree so he must be a solid coach and hopefully he learned something from Pop. Surprisingly he still is not a head coach.

            Comment


            • #7
              I like to think someone will tap Nate on the shoulder and force him to make a few adjustments: play Domas and Myles together (rain, sleet, or snow), and for the love of God take more threes. We don't have to turn into the Rockets but it's going to be hard to compete with these teams scoring 120 a night, particularly in the playoffs. You have to adapt to the league as it is; I don't love the three ball and this helter-skelter pull up 25-footers with 20 seconds on the shot clock game, but that's what it is.

              I have been wondering who the hell we'd replace him with if we decided to move on, too. Was hoping the Sixers would crash and burn so maybe they'd set Brett Brown loose, but that didn't happen. I'm not saying he's Phil Jackson but that's closer to what I'd like to see us play like.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post
                I have been wondering who the hell we'd replace him with if we decided to move on, too. Was hoping the Sixers would crash and burn so maybe they'd set Brett Brown loose, but that didn't happen. I'm not saying he's Phil Jackson but that's closer to what I'd like to see us play like.
                I very much dislike the offense Philly plays. It is just a talent disparity with that offensive force the Twitter-bully brings. Otherwise I am not that impressed with their offensive sets.
                Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post
                  Ever since the playoffs ended for the pacers we have seen many offseason threads with discussions on free agents, Kemba, and trades. We haven't seen many discussion on Nate Mcmillan. My questions for everyone is, moving forward are you confident in Nate's ability to be the coach of this team? Nate did sign an extension early in the season so we at least have him for another year.

                  As we all know the pacers run a slow offense that focuses on good shots. Unlike many of the other teams in this league we would rather take a lightly contested mid range shot over a contested 3 point shot. With that being said the pacers are at the bottom of the league in 3 point attempts per game, but near the top of the league in percentages. The pacers do have some players that can hit the 3 at a high clip, but if you look at players such as Myles, DC and bogey they are taking way less 3 point attempts then some of the counterparts on other teams. A good example of this is Myles is near a 40 percent 3 point shooter, but he takes less threes than jokic and Embiid who both shoot at about 30%. Brook Lopez more than doubles myles attempts per game. I've seen posts about myles being misused. Is this on the coaching staff, or is this Myles fault?

                  One positive with Nate is that he has this team playing great defense. We are near near the top of the league in most defensive categories and he turned Myles into a DPOY candidate. The players seem to like playing for Nate.

                  I know everyone has a different ideal situation, but let's pretend that going into the offseason your ideal situation happens. Would you be confident with Nate leading that team going forward?

                  I'm really on the fence with this one so I would like to see what everyone's thoughts are on Nate.
                  In my opinion, the offensive scheme (such that one exists) is a product of Nate McMillan's experience in the league. Both playing and coaching. I've mentioned this on several occasions in other threads. So, things like Myles not taking enough threes, really the team not taking enough, living in the midrange, all of that, I put on Nate. The defense is almost entirely on Dan Burke. I heard the stat (but now cannot find it referenced anywhere) that the Pacers are 2nd in Defensive Efficiency in the 20 seasons since Burke joined the staff. The only better team by that measure during that timespan is San Antonio. I do assume that Dan would survive any coaching change (much as he has with Larry, Rick Carlile, He Who Shall Not Be Named, Vogel and Nate) and that the Pacers would keep on running an elite defense.

                  In my perfect world, Nate would not coach this team moving forward. I would prefer someone from Pop's coaching tree. As we see in Milwaukee (specifically a Pop disciple) and Golden State (just a generally better coach all the way round than Mark Jackson), coaching matters. Either Ettore Messina or Becky Hammon would probably be my first choice. Messina has championship pedigree outside of SAS, as he has won 4 EuroLeague titles as well as other international accolades. Becky Hammon had an illustrious career as a PG and has been an assistant in San Antonio for 5 seasons. I'm sure they have both learned how to adjust to the flow of the game (in both the micro and macro sense, as Pop has won titles in 3 different decades), which is something that Nate does not excel at.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The obvious answer is no. Heís alright, but canít see him taking the Pacers to the promised land. Having said that, as currently constructed, no coach would. Doom and gloom time...just very pessimistic about the immediate future of the Pacers

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Nate is not right coach for the simple fact that he won't play his best players the minutes they should get. Playing Sabonis 24-25 minutes is a crime and I don't see Nate changing. It's time to move on.
                      Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                      Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No that being said I can't currently think of a better coach to replace him that's available.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by owl View Post

                          KP needs to step in and take away his security blankets.
                          If Thad wasn't Nate's security blanket, I'd want him back. I literally don't want Thad because of Nate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No, I think I have made my opinion of him well known.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Clearly not the right choice. Was badly out coached by Brad Stephens. If you know your HC is not close to the NBA's coaching elite, why settle for mediocre? Same can be said for Kevin Pritchard
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X