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

The Kevin Pritchard thread

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

  • The Kevin Pritchard thread

    Somehow and someway we missed really going over one of the biggest topics regarding our team at the latest Pacers Digest Gathering. So in the spirit of continuing the great party moving forward I would like everyone to chime in on this.

    Just saying "talk about Kevin Pritchard" isn't going to probably garner many responses so I'll throw out some leading questions but please by all means go wherever you want to with this in regards to KP.

    1. How do you feel he has done overall since he has taken over the big seat when Bird left?

    2. What strengths does he have?

    3. What are his weaknesses?

    4. How do you feel about his draft choices?

    5. When he speaks at a press conference or other event how do you typically feel afterwards?


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

  • #2
    Pritchard played college basketball for the University of Kansas, where he was the starting point guard on the Jayhawks team that defeated the Oklahoma Sooners for the 1988 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship.

    That would be the last time he would ever be a winner in competitive sports.

    He wins big in another way, though. He gets paid millions and millions of dollars to lose year in and year out. Really great gig. I won't front, I'm jealous.

    Comment


    • #3
      His commitment to Turner grinds my gears. But he hasn't risen to the level of Bird's refusal to can Sideburns. That's probably the worst GM saga I've experienced as a Pacer fan. At least KP had the sense to fire New Nate after one season.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #4
        5. When he speaks at a press conference or other event how do you typically feel afterwards?

        I feel anger
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #5
          1. He has been better than Bird, I'm still convinced Bird simply lucked into an ECF team. Birds early actions and his late actions to me both are pretty bad. He got lucky that Vogel fell in his lap. Without Vogel I bet the Hibbert pick looks much more like the Hansbrough pick than what it turned out to be. I just have no confidence that he would have been able to repeat his success. On the flip side Pritchard has been remarkable capable of producing similar levels of success despite essentially completely reworking the roster twice since he took over. While he hasn't put together an ECF team yet, I know the teams current level of success is not just due to random chance.

          2. His strength is he never makes a truly bad move. His mistakes tend to be more in the moves he doesn't make, than the moves he does make. Even with his worst move, signing Tyreke, it was a one year deal so there was no long term damage done.

          3. His weakness is he doesn't make room for young players to get playing time. This is either a lack of faith in his picks, or a lack of foresight. Either way these are both really bad traits to have as a GM. This lack of foresight might contribute to why he doesn't make certain moves.

          4. I think the draft picks are better than given credit, but his knack for burring them under vets and a general lack of good coaching has led to them underperforming and not developing at all. It may be that Leaf and Holiday still wash out, but Leaf actively regressed year-over-year while here, and Holiday doesn't seem to have really improved at all either. Maybe they were just bad picks, but even bad picks I would expect to see slight improvements, so I think more was going on that hindered their development than just being bad picks.

          5. In recent interviews going back to about a year ago, I feel like he has taken to speaking with a defeatist tone. Instead of taking about trying to compete, he talks about being a tough out. This to me is possibly the biggest no-no possible. Even if you do not believe your team is good enough, you still speak with a positive tone to the public. Speaking with a negative tone sends the wrong message to the team, and can be demoralizing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Easy.

            The only difference between a chair & Kevin Prichard is that you don't have to pay the chair.

            Everything he's done could've been accomplished by an automated telephone answering service. Seriously. He gets offered to play sidecar in the Harden trade. Your answering service could say "Do you accept the Oladipo for Levert trade press one for yes two for no". Same with the George deal.

            He has things happen around him & either across our declines them and tbh nothing he gets "credit" for is anywhere near a clever, savvy deal that he's constructed. I have this image of him lying on a beach somewhere, phone rings, "hmm...uh sure, yeah that sounds good. Ok bye." His moves have zero plan, zero foresight, and the team he's built is therefore bereft of identity or structure. They don't do anything particularly well or unique nor have they been designed to have any identifiable area of strength.

            He has done nothing, nothing at all, to warrant any real credit. This summer could change my opinion & I hope it will, but this far all I see is a lot of fumbling incompetently about. Perhaps even only lying on a beach, dreaming of fumbling incompetently about.

            Put it another way. I'll bet his phone has far fewer outgoing calls on any given day than any other GM in the league.

            Comment


            • #7
              I bet he is mean to homeless people and puppies as well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post
                The only difference between a chair & Kevin Prichard is that you don't have to pay the chair.
                So, you'd sit on Kevin Pritchard.

                OK. You be you.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Peck View Post

                  1. How do you feel he has done overall since he has taken over the big seat when Bird left?

                  2. What strengths does he have?

                  3. What are his weaknesses?

                  4. How do you feel about his draft choices?

                  5. When he speaks at a press conference or other event how do you typically feel afterwards?
                  1. Decent enough, hasn’t had much success in the playoffs, mostly due to injuries. This is caused by taking chances on guys that had injury histories, and those histories continued.

                  2. He is a patient decision maker. He has been put into a few precarious situations, and hasn’t made any rushed, poor decisions.

                  3 &4. I have not been a fan of his drafting. We have been drafting centers and points every year, on a team that had several centers and points. I get drafting best available, but there is a reason that these guys kept falling to us. Today’s game is all about wing talent, and this team should have been taking flyers on those guys instead.

                  5. I feel like he is pretty transparent in the pressers. I feel like he is the same way with the players. I like his leadership style.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    After KP's post draft interview I always feel that this new snake oil is going to be very good this year...but always have to wait for the new and better ointment next year....
                    His job is the best in the NBA....more power to him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      3. His weakness is he doesn't make room for young players to get playing time. This is either a lack of faith in his picks, or a lack of foresight. Either way these are both really bad traits to have as a GM. This lack of foresight might contribute to why he doesn't make certain moves.
                      This was a point of discussion during the Forum Gathering. Both BillS and I distinctly remember Pritchard saying during radio interviews when he hired Fired Nate 2.0 that he wanted to see the young players get minutes, even if it meant sacrificing regular season wins, and Fired Nate 2.0 not doing it may have been one of the reasons that he wasn't brought back (him apparently being a dick just made the decision easier).

                      I think the draft picks are better than given credit, but his knack for burring them under vets and a general lack of good coaching has led to them underperforming and not developing at all. It may be that Leaf and Holiday still wash out, but Leaf actively regressed year-over-year while here, and Holiday doesn't seem to have really improved at all either. Maybe they were just bad picks, but even bad picks I would expect to see slight improvements, so I think more was going on that hindered their development than just being bad picks.
                      There is nothing that will ever convince me otherwise that Leaf was Bird's parting gift out the door ala Plumlee.

                      Holiday had moments where he looked good under Fired Nate 1.0, but it feels like he regressed under Fired Nate 2.0, which probably goes back to the above point where Pritchard wanted the young players getting more PT instead of 40 minutes of Sabonis/Brogdon per night.

                      He's honestly not as bad as some here make him out to be. We could do a lot worse - like Larry "I want us to play the same style as Golden State, so here's Monta Ellis and Al Jefferson" Bird (wait a second....).



                      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post

                        This was a point of discussion during the Forum Gathering. Both BillS and I distinctly remember Pritchard saying during radio interviews when he hired Fired Nate 2.0 that he wanted to see the young players get minutes, even if it meant sacrificing regular season wins, and Fired Nate 2.0 not doing it may have been one of the reasons that he wasn't brought back (him apparently being a dick just made the decision easier).


                        There is nothing that will ever convince me otherwise that Leaf was Bird's parting gift out the door ala Plumlee.

                        Holiday had moments where he looked good under Fired Nate 1.0, but it feels like he regressed under Fired Nate 2.0, which probably goes back to the above point where Pritchard wanted the young players getting more PT instead of 40 minutes of Sabonis/Brogdon per night.

                        He's honestly not as bad as some here make him out to be. We could do a lot worse - like Larry "I want us to play the same style as Golden State, so here's Monta Ellis and Al Jefferson" Bird (wait a second....).
                        If Pritchard wants the young guys to get time, then he is undermining his own desires with his bench signings. If you want your rookie contracts to get playing time you have to make sure there isn't anyone who the coach can play over them. The coaches primary goal is to win the game, you can't blame them for playing players who are currently better than the rookie contracts. I think you want to bring in competition for your young guys, but ideally that competition would not actually be better.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                          If Pritchard wants the young guys to get time, then he is undermining his own desires with his bench signings. If you want your rookie contracts to get playing time you have to make sure there isn't anyone who the coach can play over them. The coaches primary goal is to win the game, you can't blame them for playing players who are currently better than the rookie contracts. I think you want to bring in competition for your young guys, but ideally that competition would not actually be better.
                          Usually, but when the GM gave the coach a free pass to play 10-13 deep a night and the coach has video of it, then the coach should do that. Nate 2's rotation got smaller as the months went by even when KP came out again and told him to reduce player minutes and extend the bench. Instead when got N8. In a compressed season we played starters big minutes which led to a ton of injuries. At that point he was forced to go to the deep players, in which those players played their hearts out and proved they deserved to play. Guess what, when players came back, those bench players got buried. I can't remember who it was, I think it was Sumner who had a great game and got buried the next game and didn't play. The Pacers team was set-up probably better than most of the teams last year to play in a condensed season but we screwed it up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Great at sweet talking and glorifying "what-if" situations, bad at building nba contenders
                            ​​​​​​
                            Originally posted by Piston Prince
                            Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                            "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                              1. Decent enough, hasn’t had much success in the playoffs, mostly due to injuries. This is caused by taking chances on guys that had injury histories, and those histories continued.

                              2. He is a patient decision maker. He has been put into a few precarious situations, and hasn’t made any rushed, poor decisions.

                              3 &4. I have not been a fan of his drafting. We have been drafting centers and points every year, on a team that had several centers and points. I get drafting best available, but there is a reason that these guys kept falling to us. Today’s game is all about wing talent, and this team should have been taking flyers on those guys instead.

                              5. I feel like he is pretty transparent in the pressers. I feel like he is the same way with the players. I like his leadership style.
                              Pretty much sums up my feelings. Could he be better? Yes, but frankly I couldn't do a better job, I doubt anyone on this forum would do a better job.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X