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

Everyone do yourself a favor

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

  • #61
    Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

    Got to say I remember personally thinking the Hawks were crazy when they passed on Paul and Deron, as well as much of the media blasting them. Just wanted to point that out so we don't have to hear about the hindsight bias of that decision.

    I think a big problem with this debate is many people's perception of tanking. Tanking doesn't have to mean you bench your star players ala the Heat last year. We don't have to sit Granger.

    In our case I think something that I've seen ChicagoJ state repeatedly is exactly what we need - we have got to put our future on the floor, which might not be our best team. We have to play Rush, Hibbert, and any other youth we might be keeping heavy minutes. If this means we win 25-30 games instead of 36-42 games because they make some bonehead plays that Foster or some other veteran wouldn't have in those minutes... so be it. Being a 36-42 win team is useless. I think this is the sentiment Croz is pushing, and if you look at it without the vitriol behind it, it really is pretty reasonable.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      Of all the guys you mentioned, Portland only really drafted Oden.
      And Portland should have gotten a worse pick that year than we did this past summer.

      It helps to be lucky.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        Got to say I remember personally thinking the Hawks were crazy when they passed on Paul and Deron, as well as much of the media blasting them. Just wanted to point that out so we don't have to hear about the hindsight bias of that decision.

        I think a big problem with this debate is many people's perception of tanking. Tanking doesn't have to mean you bench your star players ala the Heat last year. We don't have to sit Granger.

        In our case I think something that I've seen ChicagoJ state repeatedly is exactly what we need - we have got to put our future on the floor, which might not be our best team. We have to play Rush, Hibbert, and any other youth we might be keeping heavy minutes. If this means we win 25-30 games instead of 36-42 games because they make some bonehead plays that Foster or some other veteran wouldn't have in those minutes... so be it. Being a 36-42 win team is useless. I think this is the sentiment Croz is pushing, and if you look at it without the vitriol behind it, it really is pretty reasonable.
        I still disagree. It's very important to establish a certain culture with your team. This goes along with your plan. Rush and Hibbert should only play if they beat Dunleavy and Rasho, respectively. You have to earn your spot. Consequently, if Stephen Graham comes in and plays better at 2 than Rush, he should get his spot in the rotation. It has to be a meritocracy - I think that's a problem we had here with Jack and JO for a long time. When Rick benched JT for the first 30 or so games in '03-'04, it was incredibly useful because it forced JT to work on his game and earn a starting spot.
        Last edited by rexnom; 10-09-2008, 08:17 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          I think a big problem with this debate is many people's perception of tanking. Tanking doesn't have to mean you bench your star players ala the Heat last year. We don't have to sit Granger.
          First of all, tanking is tanking. There is no "perception" of what it is. It is intentionally losing games, by hook or by crook, in order to grab a higher draft pick. As a strategy, it is bankrupt, both from a player personnel perspective and from an ethical perspective. It is, in my opinion, corrosive behavior that is a betrayal to both the players and the fanbase.

          Tanking is the equivalent of buying lottery tickets in hopes of paying your rent.

          Originally posted by Dece
          In our case I think something that I've seen ChicagoJ state repeatedly is exactly what we need - we have got to put our future on the floor, which might not be our best team. We have to play Rush, Hibbert, and any other youth we might be keeping heavy minutes. If this means we win 25-30 games instead of 36-42 games because they make some bonehead plays that Foster or some other veteran wouldn't have in those minutes... so be it. Being a 36-42 win team is useless.
          While I often disagree with ChicagoJ, and generally have a completely different POV, what he proposes is not tanking. What J says is that young players that you expect to be a part of a winning future, like Rush and Hibbert, should be pushed in terms of playing time and opportunity, even if it costs some games in the short term. It doesn't necessarily require losing, though it may be a likely outcome. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.

          I would ask ChicagoJ to confirm or deny this, but I believe that he would consider a 36-42 win season this year, with both Rush and Hibbert playing significant minutes (20+) and improving towards the end of the year, a success.

          Again, putting words into ChicagoJ's keyboard, I think he'd tell you that there's a significant difference between a 36-win team that relies heavily on a short rotation with Jeff Foster/Troy Murphy/Rasho/Croshere's (or some random Flip Murray type signing) on the roster, and a 36-win team that gets significant (and increasing) contributions from the young core (Ford/Jack/Rush/Hibbert).

          Originally posted by Dece
          I think this is the sentiment Croz is pushing, and if you look at it without the vitriol behind it, it really is pretty reasonable.
          Well, to use croz' own words, this is the sentiment that croz is pushing:

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          basically, my belief is to tank until you finally find yourselves a "franchise player". once you have that, your team ought to be in contention most years and you build around that player with solid late picks, free agents, and key trades. i just want that franchise player and doubt very much that we'll ever find him drafting between 11-30 every year. just look at the colts. all it takes is one player to turn a franchise around, and you will almost never find a peyton manning as a late round draft pick.
          This has nothing to do with "getting your future on the floor". In fact, this POV tends to be resentful towards the successes of players like Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy, because they consider them threats to the ability to get the "Golden Goose". This is about getting top 5 picks and throwing them away until you find "The One". Problem with that, besides basically spitting on your fanbase, is that it prepares neither your players nor your front office to build upon "The One".

          I actually think the vitriol is pretty well deserved, but it's a complete waste of everybody's time, hence the ignore. However, people insist on quoting the guy.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

            Originally posted by rexnom View Post
            My point is just that the best way of running a team is to do your best to get the players you need and always try to win. Good players will become available, opportunities will arise.
            I have my new sig now.
            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


            • #66
              Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              While I often disagree with ChicagoJ, and generally have a completely different POV, what he proposes is not tanking. What J says is that young players that you expect to be a part of a winning future, like Rush and Hibbert, should be pushed in terms of playing time and opportunity, even if it costs some games in the short term. It doesn't necessarily require losing, though it may be a likely outcome. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.
              But who are these guys? How do you determine this? Arguably, the skill to determine who is a building block and who isn't separates the good franchises from the bad. How do we know the difference between a career backup and a career starter. Let's say Rush performs admirably at backup SG over the next year. So we make him a starter next year. What if his potential ceiling is career backup? Then he we're fitting a square peg (Rush) into a round hole (starting SG). Meanwhile, our proven starter (Dunleavy) is sitting on the bench and we're presumably not even drafting a SG for that spot. At what point do we pull Rush? Is he even the same player going back to the bench? Some people have argued that what "ruined" Freddy Jones was starting the few dozen games during the brawl season. Even if Rush is the same and he's a good backup, the Pacers effectively lost a good deal of time developing a guy and getting him to develop chemistry with guys that he won't be playing with at the end of ballgames. At that point, we'd probably want Dunleavy (or whoever else) getting that time in games.

              Btw, Detroit, again, is the best team at doing these things. They probably thought Darko would figure heavily in their plans. When they saw that it wasn't working out, they didn't hesitate to pull the trigger for a pick that became a guy that now looks like will figure heavily into their plans (Rodney Stuckey). Also, I'm amazed at how they've developed Jason Maxiell and Amir Johnson without necessarily throwing huge amounts of time their way. Obviously, both of those guys are key to their future. In Maxiell's case, he's probably a backup/energy guy, which the Pistons recognized. Many teams would have started him and given him too much burn.
              Last edited by rexnom; 10-09-2008, 10:21 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                But who are these guys? How do you determine this? Arguably, the skill to determine who is a building block and who isn't separates the good franchises from the bad. How do we know the difference between a career backup and a career starter. Let's say Rush performs admirably at backup SG over the next year. So we make him a starter next year. What if his potential ceiling is career backup? Then he we're fitting a square peg (Rush) into a round hole (starting SG). Meanwhile, our proven starter (Dunleavy) is sitting on the bench and we're presumably not even drafting a SG for that spot. At what point do we pull Rush? Is he even the same player going back to the bench? Some people have argued that what "ruined" Freddy Jones was starting the few dozen games during the brawl season. Even if Rush is the same and he's a good backup, the Pacers effectively lost a good deal of time developing a guy and getting him to develop chemistry with guys that he won't be playing with at the end of ballgames. At that point, we'd probably want Dunleavy (or whoever else) getting that time in games.

                Btw, Detroit, again, is the best team at doing these things. They probably thought Darko would figure heavily in their plans. When they saw that it wasn't working out, they didn't hesitate to pull the trigger for a pick that became a guy that now looks like will figure heavily into their plans (Rodney Stuckey). Also, I'm amazed at how they've developed Jason Maxiell and Amir Johnson without necessarily throwing huge amounts of time their way. Obviously, both of those guys are key to their future. In Maxiell's case, he's probably a backup/energy guy, which the Pistons recognized. Many teams would have started him and given him too much burn.
                I probably oversimplified my position, and, perhaps, J's. I agree with meritocracy, but not necessarily a pure meritocracy. In other words, you have to have some "vision", for lack of a better word, when making these judgments. You can't judge purely on what's happening in the camp or the practices today, but on what you (the coach) sees in the player, as far as what he could be.

                I'm not guaranteeing that Rush or Hibbert will be part of that foundation. I am simply saying that I'm fine with the idea of giving them a chance to prove that they aren't, rather than waiting for them to prove that they are before giving them a chance to play.

                In other words, I'm pretty sure that Marquis Daniels is ahead of Brandon Rush right now. However, I would be comfortable with Rush getting a disproportionate share of minutes, relative to Marquis, until that he either (a) proves that he deserves them, or (b) proves that he doesn't. The same would be true with Roy Hibbert.

                If they prove that they don't deserve them, then it would be a troubling sign for the Pacers' future, but then at least we know. I don't have an objection to Danny, Mike, or Jarrett Jack getting the nod ahead of Rush, as they can reasonably considered a part of the long term plan. I also think Murphy and Foster should get their deserved playing time. However, I don't have a problem with a slightly skewed meritocracy when it comes to guys like Rasho, Daniels, Croshere, Baston, and arguably Graham and McBob, because I don't think they'll be here years down the road (or even next year).

                Again, I don't think it's a blank check. I want to win every game we play. If we're close to the playoffs, I think we should try to make it, rather than try to avoid it. However, in our current situation, I would have the preference to see if Rush/Hibbert could help us first, rather than giving heavy burn to Marquis/Rasho, etal, or doing a Flip Murray-type rental. (Though, the Flip Murray thing is a little different. There was no long term answer at the point to interfere with, so I had less heartburn over that move as an attempt to grab a playoff spot than I would otherwise.)

                Regarding Detroit, I believe that this is a poor parallel for the situation the Pacers currently find themselves. Detroit has been contending for a title for the past half-dozen years. Their future is, in effect, now. They are looking for people to fill in around Rip, Billups, and Wallace, not necessarily for the foundation of the future. Also, they've been significantly more stable over the past few years than we have. (And, it's probably true that they're just flat doing a better job than we have/are doing.)

                The problem I run into in this argument is that I hover somewhere in between. I believe that you should instill a "winning environment" and have a "meritocracy", but not to the extent that you become too short-sighted. I believe that you should develop players for the future, but not to the extent that you're playing people who repeatedly show that they don't deserve to play. It's not an easy thing to do, (and it'll take a better man than I, Gunga Din) but you have to balance the two things.

                And, just to make it clear, under no circumstances do I support/condone/believe in "tanking". I am not trying to advance that argument in any way, shape, or form. I am simply saying that I am hopeful that Rush and Hibbert will (a) get to chance to prove they belong and (b) actually prove it. It may be somewhat unfair to a Rasho or Marquis, but it's a pragmatic approach.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                  spitting on the fanbase? WHAT fanbase? nobody shows up to pacers games as is and keeping this team mediocre will do nothing to change that. i guarantee that if the pacers had greg oden, derrick rose, michael beasley, kevin durant, or mike conley on this team, you'd begin to see fan support rise. the fans not showing up has to do with the fact that we have no superstar and thus not much potential. fans are not dumb. they realize danny granger is NOT a franchise player. yet that is who the pacers are trying to pass that baton to.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                    Count I think you proved what I'm stating very well inadvertently. I'm not pro tanking, and I'm relatively sure J isn't either. But whenever someone suggests not putting the "best" team on the floor in favor of the young team on the floor people cry TANK JOB. That was almost exactly my point, it's not tanking, it's planning for the future.

                    I guess to make myself as clear as I can :
                    benching Granger in order to lose - tanking
                    playing Rush 25 minutes a game - preparing for the future

                    The problem is people see that second one as tanking. If you happen to win 40 games with Rush playing heavy minutes, that's great, I'm not encouraging losing, I'm encouraging planning ahead, instead of being mired in mediocrity. Foster most likely will not be an integral part of a deep playoff run with the Pacers... Hibbert might be, we should find out even at the risk of dropping a few games (but we might actually be better playing Hibbert).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                      Originally posted by Dece View Post
                      I guess to make myself as clear as I can :
                      benching Granger in order to lose - tanking
                      playing Rush 25 minutes a game - preparing for the future

                      The problem is people see that second one as tanking.
                      Depends on who you are taking those minutes away from. If you are combining all your low-end-of-the-bench minutes and giving them to your future guys while not reducing your current best players' minutes, sure, I agree, that's what you want to do. On the other hand, if you are sitting your current top players when their presence might push you into a win, I consider that tanking.

                      Now, the time of the year makes a difference in this as well. Pre-season and even into the first couple of weeks of the season, maybe that's OK because it is prepping for the year ahead. However, winning at the beginning of the season sets the tone for the rest of the year.

                      Same is when you are eliminated from contention for a playoff spot. Again, though, wins in front of the crowds you do have prevent alienating those folks - unless the guys you are giving the chance to are playing their guts out.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        I probably oversimplified my position, and, perhaps, J's. I agree with meritocracy, but not necessarily a pure meritocracy. In other words, you have to have some "vision", for lack of a better word, when making these judgments. You can't judge purely on what's happening in the camp or the practices today, but on what you (the coach) sees in the player, as far as what he could be.

                        I'm not guaranteeing that Rush or Hibbert will be part of that foundation. I am simply saying that I'm fine with the idea of giving them a chance to prove that they aren't, rather than waiting for them to prove that they are before giving them a chance to play.

                        In other words, I'm pretty sure that Marquis Daniels is ahead of Brandon Rush right now. However, I would be comfortable with Rush getting a disproportionate share of minutes, relative to Marquis, until that he either (a) proves that he deserves them, or (b) proves that he doesn't. The same would be true with Roy Hibbert.

                        If they prove that they don't deserve them, then it would be a troubling sign for the Pacers' future, but then at least we know. I don't have an objection to Danny, Mike, or Jarrett Jack getting the nod ahead of Rush, as they can reasonably considered a part of the long term plan. I also think Murphy and Foster should get their deserved playing time. However, I don't have a problem with a slightly skewed meritocracy when it comes to guys like Rasho, Daniels, Croshere, Baston, and arguably Graham and McBob, because I don't think they'll be here years down the road (or even next year).

                        Again, I don't think it's a blank check. I want to win every game we play. If we're close to the playoffs, I think we should try to make it, rather than try to avoid it. However, in our current situation, I would have the preference to see if Rush/Hibbert could help us first, rather than giving heavy burn to Marquis/Rasho, etal, or doing a Flip Murray-type rental. (Though, the Flip Murray thing is a little different. There was no long term answer at the point to interfere with, so I had less heartburn over that move as an attempt to grab a playoff spot than I would otherwise.)

                        Regarding Detroit, I believe that this is a poor parallel for the situation the Pacers currently find themselves. Detroit has been contending for a title for the past half-dozen years. Their future is, in effect, now. They are looking for people to fill in around Rip, Billups, and Wallace, not necessarily for the foundation of the future. Also, they've been significantly more stable over the past few years than we have. (And, it's probably true that they're just flat doing a better job than we have/are doing.)

                        The problem I run into in this argument is that I hover somewhere in between. I believe that you should instill a "winning environment" and have a "meritocracy", but not to the extent that you become too short-sighted. I believe that you should develop players for the future, but not to the extent that you're playing people who repeatedly show that they don't deserve to play. It's not an easy thing to do, (and it'll take a better man than I, Gunga Din) but you have to balance the two things.

                        And, just to make it clear, under no circumstances do I support/condone/believe in "tanking". I am not trying to advance that argument in any way, shape, or form. I am simply saying that I am hopeful that Rush and Hibbert will (a) get to chance to prove they belong and (b) actually prove it. It may be somewhat unfair to a Rasho or Marquis, but it's a pragmatic approach.
                        I think we can agree to a consensus here. Detroit is an example - obviously they're in a different position. I think the Dunleavy-Quis-Rush rotation will be interesting to see. I, too, would prefer to see Rush get a disproportionate amount of those backup minutes.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                          Originally posted by Dece View Post
                          Count I think you proved what I'm stating very well inadvertently. I'm not pro tanking, and I'm relatively sure J isn't either. But whenever someone suggests not putting the "best" team on the floor in favor of the young team on the floor people cry TANK JOB. That was almost exactly my point, it's not tanking, it's planning for the future.

                          I guess to make myself as clear as I can :
                          benching Granger in order to lose - tanking
                          playing Rush 25 minutes a game - preparing for the future

                          The problem is people see that second one as tanking. If you happen to win 40 games with Rush playing heavy minutes, that's great, I'm not encouraging losing, I'm encouraging planning ahead, instead of being mired in mediocrity. Foster most likely will not be an integral part of a deep playoff run with the Pacers... Hibbert might be, we should find out even at the risk of dropping a few games (but we might actually be better playing Hibbert).
                          Cool...I'm not 100% on board with you and J, but the differences are primarily tactical (and who/what merit's those "preparing for the future" minutes), rather than strategic.

                          Rex...I figured we'd get more or less in the same place. I was just struggling to clearly explain my position.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Everyone do yourself a favor

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            Cool...I'm not 100% on board with you and J, but the differences are primarily tactical (and who/what merit's those "preparing for the future" minutes), rather than strategic.

                            Rex...I figured we'd get more or less in the same place. I was just struggling to clearly explain my position.
                            Btw, if I could, I would nominate your last post for the "Best Rudyard Kipling Mention in a Pacers-related Discussion."

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X