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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • #16
    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    I like bringing the rooks along a bit slower, unless they show an ability to help your team right away.

    Sprinkle in playing time for the rookies throughout the year. Put them in with the vets, not the other rookies. Pick their opponent. And when injuries happen give them that chance to step up. There's not a minute or game requirement even.

    I think George could help us from the wing right away. His athleticism is something we badly need at the spot. He'll probably step into a role of 10-15 minutes off the bench, depending on how much Posey sucks during the season.

    Lance and Magnum should be in suits a lot of nights early, but when they have favorable opponents, make them active and give them some time in quarter 2 or 3.

    Hansbrough....I think he may be the only guy you want to actually get force-fed minutes due to our lack of ready depth at big. Probably 15 minutes per game, ramping up as the season progresses if he shows that he can handle it.
    "man, PG has been really good."

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_101013.html
      By Conrad Brunner

      Ten things you need to know about the Pacers' 98-86 victory over the Timberwolves on Wednesday at Conseco Fieldhouse. …


      •After using developmental substitution patterns in the first three games, Coach Jim O'Brien went to a more standard look and the results were impressive. Danny Granger scored 30 with 11 rebounds and four assists. Darren Collison scored 19 with three assists. Roy Hibbert had 16 points, 14 rebounds, seven blocks and four assists. Josh McRoberts had eight points and 11 boards but five turnovers.


      •After using the five-in, five-out substitution pattern of the first three games, employed so that young players could receive enough playing time for reasonable evaluation, the transition began toward standardizing the rotations. "We've been playing kind of equal opportunity to give a chance for the young guys to get in there and mix it up," he said. "More of a normal rotation tonight, not completely, but once we play Friday night (against New Orleans in Conseco Fieldhouse) we'll be into our eight-to-10 man rotation."


      •The defensive numbers looked good – Minnesota shot .319 overall and totaled just 34 points on 12-of-43 (.279) shooting in the second half – but did not impress the coach. "We are so far away from being a halfway decent defensive team," said O'Brien. "We're setting ourselves up for disappointment if we don't defend at a better level than we did tonight."


      •Paul George may have busted his preseason slump. He scored 10 off the bench with six rebounds in 24 minutes. He was 3-of-21 in the first three games, totaling seven points in 65 minutes. "I am getting a little more adjusted," he said. "It is as hard as I thought it would be."


      •Playing the second of a back-to-back, the T-Wolves led 52-47 at the half but were outscored 25-13 in the third quarter and that was that. As a result, the previously winless Pacers improved to 1-3 and the previously undefeated T-Wolves dropped to 3-1. As if that matters.


      •O'Brien would like to use a 10-man rotation during the regular season but it could depend on the tempo the Pacers establish. "It might depend on the tempo that we have established in a game but I would like to have confidence in 10 people," he said. "Whether we use all 10 every night is another issue but I would like to have 10 guys that would be ready to go and play every game."


      •My best guess on those 10: starters Darren Collison, Mike Dunleavy, Danny Granger, Josh McRoberts and Roy Hibbert; backups A.J. Price, James Posey, Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough and Jeff Foster.

      •Beyond the top six, there wasn't much in the way of productivity for the Pacers (no one else scored more two),

      O'Brien will not donate playing time to younger players for the sake of their development. "I want to develop the young guys but I'm not developing anybody to the point that it might cost us a game," he said. " … We can talk about rebuilding all we want. My job is to win basketball games and develop talent. But the top priority is to win basketball games."

      •Brandon Rush has put himself in a real bind with the season-opening five-game suspension. If the guys playing ahead of him in the interim (namely Dunleavy and George) perform well, he may face a fight for playing time when he returns. "There are two issues," said O'Brien. "There would be the issue of where he would be in the rotation if he wasn't suspended. That is an issue separate from the suspension. He has to earn a rotation spot, number one. Number two, clearly he can't be in it the first five games so I'm thinking in terms of obviously other people. And depending on how the other people do in the first five games, we'll see how he fits back in."


      Intersting that Conrad doesnt think Rush will be in the rotation. Also as much as I dont like Jim, I understand and agree that its about wins. If I was a coach and had a family to support, I wouldnt be so concerened with playing the young guys, I would do whatever I could to win , to ultimitlley keep my job

      That does make sense
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        Originally posted by Speed View Post
        I was thinking about Josh, I think he just now has a defined position that fits. He wasn't mature enough physically before to be a PF and not nearly mobile enough to be a SF. It just took him awhile to fit into the position of PF. I think thats a big reason we have seen such a drastic improvement.

        Clarification: It's not that he was ever projected to be a SF, it's just he was never ready to be a PF, until now.

        You are exactly right. He was not quick enough to be a athletic beat you to the basket PF and he wasnt strong enough to be a ill just bump you until I get there PF. Now he is and it is working great for him.

        This is just preseason. I keep telling myself that. I keep being reminded of visions of David Harrison scoring 10-15 ppg in every pre season game a few years ago so I try not to get that excited.

        But if he can keep this going through the season. I would let him have the PF spot. He has to average 10 rpg though. Tell him he will be the PF of the future if he can do that. Then I go and break the bank on a top tier SG.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          Clarification: It's not that he was ever projected to be a SF, it's just he was never ready to be a PF, until now.
          Actually, if I remember right, he was regarded as a tweener at one point. People thought he could play both positions pro early in his duke career.
          "man, PG has been really good."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            Another thing. If george can continue to give us the performance he did last night. He continue to sit rush.

            I am not saying start PG24 but atleast get him 15-20 min per game.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Buck

              Your points make sense. The only thing I would say is lets NOT play the young guys early unless they give us the best chance to win, period.

              When this would change for me is if come say March we are clearly out of the playoff race, then I definitely want the young guys to play and play often. I would much rather have that than win meaningless games at the end , with our starters and have Jim or whoever tell us how important it was to build momentum for next year
              Sittin on top of the world!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                I's like to make a related point:


                Looking at Jose Slaughter's excellent Front Page contribution, I see the list of All-Time Pacers listed by seasons played.

                How many Pacers ever have played in 10 or more seasons? The answer is 5. (Miller, Smits, Fleming, Foster and Davis).

                How many Pacers have played in only one single season? The answer is a whopping 138. This is not based on O'Brien's supposed mishandling of rookies, nor just the years of Larry "I Don't Play Rookies" Brown. The whole history of the franchise shows clearly that one-and-done is the usual pattern. Just defining "One" as a single year gets you more than half of all Pacers in history. If you define them as one contract, then you've got nearly the total. Players with a history of five or more years with the Pacers is still a very small number of 32, and that includes guys like Greg Dreiling who had nothing much to develop, and guys like Bender who couldn't even make it onto the court.

                So, what I'm saying is, just because you've got a young player on the roster doesn't mean you've got talent worth developing. The enthusiasm some feel right now about Magnum Rolle is nothing else than the enthusiasm that somebody in Atlanta felt for Solomon Jones when he was drafted there.

                Most players wash out. There just aren't enough minutes to go around. Developing a player who's not going to be here in three years is not smart.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  Let me ask this, if everyone is healthy and ready....

                  How would people feel if TJ comes back and plays over AJ?

                  What about if Posey plays back up PF instead of Hansbrough?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    Let me ask this, if everyone is healthy and ready....

                    How would people feel if TJ comes back and plays over AJ?

                    What about if Posey plays back up PF instead of Hansbrough?
                    Honestly I have no poltics involved

                    If TJ and Posey CLEARLY outplay AJ and Tyler , thats the right thing to do

                    If however, one or the other is played because of reasons not related to their play on the court, I have a big issue with that
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Be like the Thunder play your young guys until they get better.
                      I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                      Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                      Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        Let me ask this, if everyone is healthy and ready....

                        How would people feel if TJ comes back and plays over AJ?

                        What about if Posey plays back up PF instead of Hansbrough?
                        I won't jump out a window, I won't call for O'Brien's head. Ford is a legitimate NBA point guard. He can be effective. But I think Price has looked good so far and as long as his knee is OK, I would just rather Price get the backup point guard minutes instead of Ford.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                          Be like the Thunder play your young guys until they get better.

                          Sure lets acquire several top 5 picks and potentially the best player in the nba and see how that works out.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            The Pacers should finish developing the young guys who have been on the team previously and add Collison to the future development of the team with big minutes, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of winning (or at least stinking less).

                            Part of the issue here at this point is that the guys who have been our young guys before are now starters and still need a lot more development this year.

                            Roy still needs work on almost every aspect of his game to develop consistency and enough confidence to be agressive.

                            Josh (who is about out of the NBA right now, right?) obviously is just beginning to become the player he can be and will need time to adjust to his new role and playing on a part of the court he is not used to playing which will take even more time to master.

                            Rush, assuming he is still part of any future plans, still needs time to further develop the offensive aspect of his game (I hope he still can, otherwise what a "wasted" opportunity, and I mean that both ways).

                            AJ Price could also use time to finish developing as well, and I just hope he is given the chance to because I still feel he could be a long term starter on an NBA team that focuses on fundamentals, and I still think he should be ahead of Collison in the rotation even though that won't happen.

                            Then, there is Hansbrough, who arguably is a rookie once again who now is more raw than he was when he was drafted due to not being on the court for so long and has a long way to go to become a contributor.

                            And, Collison still needs work, but not the work he will likely get here. He needs to develop a passing game, but in the current system it isn't going to happen (I still hope you are right, but so far it doesn't appear that the passing aspect of the pg position is being changed, the only change being the addition of more PnR without enough capable bigs available to play it effectively).

                            So, in my view, the young guys the Pacers already had STILL need time to develop despite having reached the very beginning of vet status for the purposes of this discussion. The rookies this year are more raw than any of the guys I mentioned above were as rookies.

                            Stephenson is possibly the least "born ready" of the three despite being the best scorer. Of all things, if he is not bought out, Stephenson should probably spend the majority of this season on the bench or inactive in my view, and I will label him as most likely to be out of the NBA by the end of his rookie contract, but I wouldn't mind ending up wrong about that because he is a smooth scorer that kind of reminds me of a smaller Jalen Rose.

                            Rolle is probably the most ready to contribute but possibly has the lowest ceiling of any of the three, and his status of being kept has to be in question at this point, but I think he probably will be. He should probably get the most minutes of the three due to the lack of enough players to adequately cover 48 minutes at the 4/5 positions, but I am not entirely sure that O'Brien will give him minutes barring a complete implosion of Hansbrough. Also, Posey could still surprise, which would reduce Rolle's minutes, but that is unlikely at best.

                            George is a better scorer than he has shown thus far, and has the potential to play defense at a fairly high level, but he needs actual court time to develop court awareness against teams that play solid perimeter defense to further his development (failure can be a great teacher, and he will fail frequently at this point). That said, I am at a loss as to how he will get that time with the types of players that are in front of him at the combo guard and wing positions without the team going small with an alarming frequency, which I am starting to believe is highly likely to happen due to O'Brien's "our front line is alarmingly thin" comment combining that with his penchant for running two combo guards and two wings with one big. That eventuality would be in Paul's favor, and even if the results suffer because of it, I am in favor of his getting minutes in place of bits and pieces of minutes from a combination of Granger, Rush, and Dunleavy.

                            If this is "having it both ways", I guess I do want it both ways. Notice I didn't take into account much to do with the former vets, Ford (who probably will get combo minutes this year at AJ's expense because he attacks more and the Pacers will want to maximize his trade deadline value, if he has any), Foster (who will get minutes as long as his back holds up, and should get those minutes if there is any hope of establishing any real PnR even though the punishment he will get from setting those hard picks might knock him out sooner than I would like), Dunleavy (who will get minutes due to being the best offensive initiator from the wing that will keep defenses honest), and Granger (duh). I believe that leaves Solo, Dahntay, and Posey, and they should be practice squad guys unless something truly radical happens, with Solo the second most likely to be cut by the end of pre-season because Posey will be kept as a fourth for the Former Celtic Parquet Reminiscence and Bridge Club so that they don't have to play with a blind.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post

                              How many Pacers ever have played in 10 or more seasons? The answer is 5. (Miller, Smits, Fleming, Foster and Davis).

                              How many Pacers have played in only one single season? The answer is a whopping 138. This is not based on O'Brien's supposed mishandling of rookies, nor just the years of Larry "I Don't Play Rookies" Brown. The whole history of the franchise shows clearly that one-and-done is the usual pattern. Just defining "One" as a single year gets you more than half of all Pacers in history. If you define them as one contract, then you've got nearly the total. Players with a history of five or more years with the Pacers is still a very small number of 32, and that includes guys like Greg Dreiling who had nothing much to develop, and guys like Bender who couldn't even make it onto the court.

                              So, what I'm saying is, just because you've got a young player on the roster doesn't mean you've got talent worth developing. The enthusiasm some feel right now about Magnum Rolle is nothing else than the enthusiasm that somebody in Atlanta felt for Solomon Jones when he was drafted there.

                              Most players wash out. There just aren't enough minutes to go around. Developing a player who's not going to be here in three years is not smart.
                              That goes back to a point I often make in response to the blanket refrain, play the young guys,play the young guys. OK which young guys. Not all "young guys" are alike. Paul George looks like a keeper - OK I can see playing him because not only should he develop into something special, but right now he can help the team. But Magnum and Lance - seem like they are just too raw right now - who knows if they will be on the roster in 3 years. I would be less inclined to look to them

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                                For me a lot of it depends on who your veterans are and who you are putting the young guys in against.

                                In almost all cases, starting a rookie who is raw out of college against the top NBA stars is, in my opinion, the best way to crush him. A player has to have the tools to succeed, and just throwing him into the deep end with no NBA-level learning curve is cruel.

                                You do it if you clearly have a special player or if there is no other alternative at the position, but you don't do it otherwise.

                                In my mind a player needs to earn minutes in the rotation. The problem with being a general level fan is that we really don't know two things:

                                - what a coach is looking for during scrimmages/shootarounds/time on the floor
                                - what a player is actually doing in scrimmages and shootarounds

                                Fans tend to base their entire opinions on whether a player should be on the floor on what they do in games in specific situations. While this is significant, a good coach should be able to see how a player is doing and decide if his current skillset is something that can be easily counteracted or even exploited by the other team, or if - in the long run - it is better than the veteran the player would be replacing. You can't see those things only during minimal floor minutes, and using critical game time to showcase it is not what games are for.

                                Which brings me to my final point. I think I've been clear that I feel the purpose of playing games is to win. As much as people say they want player development rather than wins in order to go for the future, how many of those people will buy tickets until that future occurs? In general, whatever other factors may exist, your job as players and coaches is to win. New players in particular need to get a winning attitude if they are going to be successful in those future years. You should not sacrifice your best players' time on the floor in favor of purely developing young players if it means you will lose even one more game.

                                Let's look at those circumstances, though. In 2008-20099, where we were in almost every game until the last minute, there was little or no non-critical time available to put undeveloped players into the game. In 2009-2010, though, there were a large number of games where there would seem to have been plenty of minutes for young guys. The decision point, I think, rests on whether the coach feels more benefit is gained by having a certain combination of players who will be used through the season on the floor to try to work out their problems, or whether the time is better used for young player development. I think the point at which this line is drawn is the source of pretty much every disagreement between fans and between them and coaches.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X