Tweet
Fact of the matter is the Pacers brass lives in the 90s with their obsession in building a frontcourt. The best teams in the NBA have players that can switch between 1-4 and all we seem to do is accumulate 4-5s. Holiday is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant offense that became more pronounced with Oladipo out. He may not be the answer, but he at least made the team more aggressive on offense and less stagnant. That alone is worth playing him, unless you get an upgrade.
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.
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
-
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained. -
If Goga's the real deal, It'll be interesting to see how Myles responds having a young talented guy backing him up that can do a lot of the same things that make Myles unique. Will it push him to be more aggressive and take the next step offensively or will he be looking over his shoulder? Myles doesn't have Hibbert level issues, but you can certainly tell a difference in his game when he's confident and decisive.Originally posted by Peck View Post
Comment
-
I'm in the camp that we should give Domas and Turner a fair shot at playing together, but WTH are we gonna do when the Lakers run out a LBJ/Davis front courtOriginally posted by Suaveness View Post
?
Agree with the Holiday take. Start him and don't look back. Use the cash to get quicker, more athletic, and younger if possible.
Comment
-
Man, I get so tired of hearing this over and over. And not just that statement, but just the whole small ball, switchable parts, 3-point jacking sentiment. Certain play styles get "hot" and people think "that's the only way you win in this game today". It changes every decade, and yet there's always teams that go completely against the grain. You can't get caught up in that crap.Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
Small ball and 3-jacking is not the only way to win. It's how a particular *team* or teams are winning at this time. Just because the Warriors and Rockets and Bucks and a handful of teams do what they do DOES NOT MEAN that is the ONLY way to win in this league. Case in point, look up north. The Raptors just took it to the entire NBA and beat the golden children in SF (after dispatching the juggernaut that had been the Bucks and even a really really good Sixers team) by rolling out plodding/slow/huge Marc Gasol 30+ mpg as a starter and by timely/accurate 3-point shooting, not volume 3-point shooting. Look it up. They are middle of the NBA in 3-point attempts --- but they do hit at a decent rate. That was the key. Toronto doesn't play with tremendous pace. They didn't even particularly kill it on the boards (middle of the pack). Toronto won it all by frankly just being sorta well-rounded and executing in the clutch. They were a top 10 offense and a top 10 defense, (about 10th in both) and that's all it took. The teams who did go totally small, the teams who jacked a ton of 3s? Out. They got beat.
Meanwhile, if the NBA didn't value big guys, why was there just a feeding frenzy for Anthony Davis where LA gave up years worth of assets? What team wouldn't want Jokic? Guys incredible. Turner and Sabonis were drawing a LOT of interest from teams. Big guys are really becoming amazing... they're still big, but now these big guys are starting to move like guards, doing more than just camping out in the paint. Giannis is a huge man, it's easy to forget that, but he's a big dude. Joel Embiid is a freak. KAT is an animal. Rudy Gobert is a big man. There are some really amazing big guys coming into the league, capable of doing things in the post AND sitting out and hitting 3s and even running the point.
You can't get wrapped up in trends --- you just build your team to succeed in the way that it can.Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 06-25-2019, 05:17 PM.There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.Comment
-
Is this an Aaron Holiday thread? My take on him is that he had a decent first year and he may play well this coming year but there is ABSOLUTELY no way he starts. He's not paid nearly enough compared to other options at PG. So, once again, look for a repeat of last year and hope that he plays so well they can't keep him off the floor.
Think of Domas. He was too good to keep off the floor but even he didn't start. Otherwise he would have had KOQ minutes. Holiday may be hard pressed to get minutes if Dipo comes back healthy. I think he played a bit combo guard and that role will be reduced.Comment
-
The Pacers would do the same thing they did against the Cavs in the playoffs when they would play Love at Center. Bogey would guard LeBron, and then one of Turner/Sabonis would hide on the least threatening player on the floor.Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
I'm in the camp that we should give Domas and Turner a fair shot at playing together, but WTH are we gonna do when the Lakers run out a LBJ/Davis front court?
Agree with the Holiday take. Start him and don't look back. Use the cash to get quicker, more athletic, and younger if possible.Comment
-
Does it really matter who you throw out against those two? Nope, might as well do our thing and do it the best we can.Originally posted by Cubs231721 View PostComment
-
Trial by fire makes some.....and breaks others.Originally posted by BillS View Post"The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" DanzigComment
-
I do not know ( for now ) if Aaron is our future Starting PG or not. I suspect that ( at worst ) he's a solid "1st Guard off the bench" that can play 24 to 28 mpg. I just want him to develop and get to the point that he can handle that minimal role. The main reason is because I want to develop "in-house" talent that is cheap but capable of contributing on a high level. I hope to do the same for Sumner, Alize and Leaf on a smaller scale so that they can be cheap talent that can contribute on some level.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Kyle Lowry was also a 24th pick like Aaron. Does anyone know what his early career arc looked like?"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference
Comment
-
[QUOTE=BillS;n3460909]
As with all things there is a middle ground. You are correct that practices and camps are useful and where the fundamental work is done to improve the player and the team. However where people always seem to veer off course here is when they fail to acknowledge what the Pacers have publicly acknowledged. That the team does not actually practice during the regular season no a regular basis. You get shoot arounds, film sessions and even backup practice. But to have the team practice does not happen except on a few long home stands or on away games where they have several days off. Yes they get attention from the assistant coach's and are given specific things to work on by the head coach but no they are not getting what they get in camp. That being said virtually every single NBA player I've ever heard from Charles Barkley to Steph Curry has said that there is no substitution for game time experience for learning. That being said, I hate the fact that if Nate was going to DNP-CD Holiday so much last year he should have sent him to the Mad Ants for some time.The problem around here is that no one believes that information gained from practice or training camp is useful - most seem to think that only actually playing in a game proves anything. Over and over again people repeat the mantra "put him in a game and see what happens" as if no one has a clue how a guy will play until he's in a game.
You do realize you just made vnzla's head explode right? I mean you are admitting that the lower the draft pick is it is because they are there for a reason. So am I to take it that you are now the leader of the tank bandwagon.You bring up the #1 draft pick as an example as if just saying "I'm not comparing Aaron to him" is enough to make it level ground. It isn't. If Aaron was picked top 5 and still not playing I'd be right there with everyone regarding starting him, but he was picked where he was for a reason - even given 3 years of college ball. There's also the matter of the position - I have long believed that PG is the single hardest position to play well in the NBA - and even in the age of "positionless" ball someone ends up being the primary playmaker.
So in other words whenever Pritchard is gushing on about our current draft pick it will be perfectly fine for graphicer or someone to say "well they were available for a reason". No me on the other hand, I say talent is talent no matter where you are drafted. So just because Aaron was picked in the lower half of the first round I don't think he should be held back if he has the talent to prove otherwise.
Not really sure what this means, but if you are saying he was impacted because of his inconsistent use by Nate then I'm right there with you.It also isn't like his time as deep bench was so consistent when he moved up in the rotation.
You mean like coach's and veteran's? Setting someone up for failure was putting Edmond Sumners starting his first game against the Golden State Warriors. Yes, that happened btw. But your premise implies that Holiday would fail over and over, I don't believe he would. Again this is a player by player thing. I would not say let's just start TJ Leaf and make him play through it. Holiday is a different type of alpha dog player to me.You want to set players up for success, not set them up for failure because they will magically learn from it. You only learn from failure when you have someone helping you change, not from going out and getting clobbered over and over again. It has nothing to do with whether he will wilt emotionally, it has to do with whether he will become a better player from the experience.
Certainly. However there are also some coach's who are more hypocritical than others. I believe I know where Nate falls on that spectrum.It's called having earned the trust of the coach. We can argue over whether that trust was deserved, but the idea is that no one expected CoJo to do that in multiple games while a rookie has no body of work. It's not a good answer to allow your rookie to get into the habit of making mistake after mistake after mistake with impunity.
Your not going to find any. The one thing I will not blame Nate for is who he uses. I don't like it and yes I will say he is wrong but at the end of the day I know that a coach job is to win and he will play the players who he thinks will make that happen. It is the director of basketball operations to look forward and either give the coach a pass to play and develop players or give him the type of players he needs. This is where I fault Bird a lot in the Satan years. I hate Satan with all of my heart but I also always acknowledge that Bird never gave him the players he needed to do what he wanted to do.I really want to find these mythical coaches in the NBA - who seem to be everyone but the Pacers' coaches and a few others according to what people seem to think - who are in the middle playoff seeds through the season and constantly purposefully bench veterans to let rookies make mistakes in games. I'd venture to say any rookie "allowed" to do that is an early lottery pick whose upside on the court far outweighs the mistakes they make. For all the potential Holiday has he isn't that guy.
True, won't deny it.Bottom line is that everyone thinks the guy they like got pulled too early and the guy they hate got left on the court too long.
My first priority is to get a player better than Aaron Holiday that can be the long term starter making this entire thread moot. I believe Russell is that player. But if not then no I do NOT want a Rubio or whoever else filling in for two more years (nobody worth a crap is going to sign a one year deal) while Holiday rots on the bench.I would agree that I don't want another PG on a long term contract, but a year so that Aaron can be the principal bench unit PG would be the best situation in my book. I want Aaron to get some success and learn good habits playing with a unit against bench defense, not being pulled in multiple directions playing with a unit that is temporary (or working Dipo back into shape) against starter defense.
Where we differ is only in semantics of what you think the previous two seasons were. I feel confident that you look at the previous two seasons and see success, I look at the first season as a pleasant surprise with last season to me being a failure. Once Victor went down a huge failure because the inevitability of so many free agents being just wasted. Those were tradable assets that we just let squander away. The first round sweep to the Celtics meant nothing to me and I would have just as soon drop down to lose to the Bucks or Raptors in four knowing we got assets to work with going forward.I am clearly too old-fashioned for any sport today. I love a grinding defensive NBA game. I love a pitchers' duel. Even in the NFL I hate that the field goal has become all but automatic so that there's no more real holding teams scoreless. I love seeing strategy and tactics a lot more than a whoever-misses-first-loses slugfest.
That would tell you I hope that I'd rather see good solid wins than "exciting" losses.
But having said that, yes I love a good defensive game as much as anyone (remember who my favorite player was) but even then I want to see some speed and athleticism with it. Not just have decent defense because we bored them to death.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Yep, do realize Stummer's point of view. Strummer's our biggest Mad Ants fan on the board, so I know they understand how good Sumner is.Originally posted by Peck View Post
I wasn't knocking O'Quinn. I said at our gathering that I think he's the best 5th big we've ever had. I just find it ironic that people who think highly of KOQ also think lowly of Sumner, that's all.Comment
-
There's a false equivalency being built here. It's pretty clear that the guys picked earliest in the draft are the ones more ready to contribute immediately at a high level. It doesn't mean guys picked later will never contribute at a high level, it means they may take some time to develop (or have concerns that outweigh their expected contribution - like health or character or experience - or even are just not clearly the BPA at the time). I firmly believe in potential, but where I fall of the bandwagon is that I don't believe potential is something that has to be rushed or it is wasted. Our perception is skewed because most of the superstars are the ones who came into the league already nearly at the top and so of course they will play right away and thrive. The guys who develop more slowly are most likely going to be a tier below that, but a team of them is still pretty damn strong.Originally posted by Peck View PostYou do realize you just made vnzla's head explode right? I mean you are admitting that the lower the draft pick is it is because they are there for a reason. So am I to take it that you are now the leader of the tank bandwagon. So in other words whenever Pritchard is gushing on about our current draft pick it will be perfectly fine for graphicer or someone to say "well they were available for a reason". No me on the other hand, I say talent is talent no matter where you are drafted. So just because Aaron was picked in the lower half of the first round I don't think he should be held back if he has the talent to prove otherwise.
I'm going to go back to one thing I posted that I think is important in my concept of playing time - the detriment of a player on the floor while he works out his mistakes has GOT to be outweighed by his upside in that game. A PG getting double-digit assist is going to be allowed to play through a bunch of turnovers. A guy grabbing tons of rebounds is going to be forgiven some poor rotations on defense that allow a dunk or two. And a veteran is going to get the benefit of the doubt over a rookie as to whether those good things will happen later in the game if/when he has a bad start or a bad stretch. We've seen what happens on teams where playing time is completely based on "what have you done for me lately" - players start playing just for themselves in fear that they'll lose their spot in the rotation if they defer to someone else, there's no ability for instinctive playmaking because you don't have consistent groups of teammates on the floor with you, etc.
I'm always going to be conservative about rookie playing time unless there is clear evidence no one is better ahead of them. I think, though, that there's only a fine line between that and those who want to see the rookie (or young guy in general) playing unless there is clear evidence the veteran is better. I mainly just think that what we see in a game is only part of why those decisions are made, so second-guessing them should be based on our observations being taken with a grain of salt.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
-
One thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is that contracts encourage young players to play earlier. Teams will pay young players based on potential. The best way to get a fair deal in restricted free agency is to have plenty of in-game data to base it off of.
Also, team building is hard when you don't really know what you have in a young player. Lengthening that process out makes it harder to build, not easier.Comment
-
And for the most part only those who are closest to the situation have a good enough understanding to know how a player will react to trial by fire. Us fans are always too far removed.Originally posted by HC View PostComment
Comment