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

Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

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

  • Re: Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

    Originally posted by kester99 View Post
    Marquis made three short jump shots at the end of the 3rd, beginning of the 4th. Yes they were 6-12 footers, but these are the shots being referred to...over our shorter guards.
    I agree, he posted up them a few times, created plays when the double come and made a couple of shots. But having a rim protector won't really help much in that type of situation. He was passing off the double.

    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
    Daniels came in with about 4-1/2 minutes to go in Q3 and the Pacers leading by 7. He was able to post up and take shots within 5-8 feet of the basket over Ford. When we attempted to double team that created a numbers problem for us on the weak side of the basket. The Celtics were able to move the ball to a wide open player or on a couple of occassions, get offensive rebounds and put backs due to the numbers problem. At the end of Q3, the lead had dwindled to 1.

    I thought the problem was larger at the start of the 4th, when Collison was guarding him. That's when the Pacers doubled earlier and eventually switched Collison to Von Wafer (who immediately cut to the basket and scored off a pass from Daniels) and Rush on Daniels, I think.

    In that stretch in the 3rd, I think it was Pierce making most of the plays.

    Comment


    • Re: Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

      Originally posted by Indra View Post
      You lost me with this one. You actually this he's a great coach? Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Greg Popovich, Red Auerbach....Jim O'Brien? You can't possibly be serious...
      I think we have differences of opinion on great. I think Pop is an elite coach. Jim is great.

      Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
      Flox,

      When you quoted me, you had asked if I watched the San Antonio-Lakers game last night. The Spurs finished with 97 points. They were terrific in their transition from defensive rebound to getting into the break. I wouldn't say they played uptempo overall though. If that was the case they would have finished with a lot more possessions. Did they push the tempo however, absolutely, because TP, Manu, and RJeff all do well in transition.
      I don't disagree that they didn't play fully uptempo- but a lot of their offensive droughts have been solved by this new uptempo, run and gun style that they previously didn't have. If I had to guess, not from viewing the numbers, but from the games I've watched this year, they've been using a lot of a run and gun and motion as well as up tempo offense this year, while their halfcourt sets are still there but used a lot less. We'll see what they favor post break and in the playoffs.

      The best big man in that game was probably Blair. But at what point would you ever say that Blair doesn't have "size", which is how I referred to competing with them. Blair uses his leverage and strength to bully people out of the way. If he didn't have the "size" that he does, he wouldn't be effective at 6'7". "Size" doesn't always mean height. That is why I didn't say "height". Hibbert has height, yes. Both Blair and Hibbert have "size" as it comes in different forms. Davis utilizes his "size" the same way as Blair. Davis was using his advantages over Hibbert better than Hibbert was using his advantages over Davis. Plain and simple. Hibbert (and JOB) need to utilize his height more appropriately. I don't think I have ever seen Hibbert's hook shot blocked, as an example.[/QUOTE]

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      It's funny, O'brien supporters are the only ones who ever want to ignore the AJ part.

      Why? because that move makes the least sense of any of them. (And that's saying something.)

      Not playing Josh last year and the year before. It's stupid. It was always stupid. But at least Josh did look lost on occassion, and so there was an excuse. (He probably looked loss because he hasn't played much.)
      I still think Josh looks lost at times.

      Tyler this year, same thing. Although it's pretty obvious his postiives outweigh his negatives, you can at least see the excuse. (Which would probably be corrected with playing time.)

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      But Price? There is no excuse. We have TJ Ford and Darren Collison? Not an excuse, Price is the only point who runs this offense well. He's the only point that can run the break well. And DC and TJ have not been playing well. AJ can actually make a pass into the post. He defends..at least significantly better than Collison, and I prefer him to TJ because despite Ford being better at ball pressure, Ford is tiny, can't guard a PnR to save his life (which is important. And it's not that Price is good there, he's just significantly better than the other two) and loses his player if the player doesn't have the ball in his hands.
      Price runs the offense well, and you have seen me say that he runs the offense the best. Probably the best shooter of the three. He defense well. Do I think he's a better player than either? No. I think in the large scheme of things, AJ will be irrelevant to the team. He's a good player- I think he's ok, but I don't really think all this outrage about him not playing is warrented. At least not until we can state with longer term probability that Collison and Ford suck.

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post

      According to the coach, since being drafted he:
      1. Out plays the vets in practice. This was in November of his rookie season. November. He understood the offense in November. How long has it taken TJ? Oh wait, he still doesn't get it..yea..

      2. Was the best player in preseason..which..after that comment, he was immediatly awarded with being benched in favor of a still recovering TJ (who then proceeded to get hurt 5 minutes in)

      3. Understands the offense. Which, according to JOB, Darren does not.

      4. Always has a good practice.

      5. Is consistent.

      And I'm forgetting some. Not that it matters, everytime the coach says something postive about AJ, he benches him.

      Darren, although hasn't played his best, has potential and has a future here. And was given "the keys to the car" this season, so until someone outplays him, he should get to keep that spot. TJ does not have either. And doesn't bring anything else to the table that the other two don't. (other than the ability to stall the offense.) So why's he playing? Why's he finishing?

      But regardless. That's my issue here. You have Price, a kid who clearly earned his playing time, based on play and his own coach's evaulation of practice. How do you think that looks to Paul George and Lance Stephenson? Even though Price plays well in games and practices well, he sits on the inactive list..what, you don't think the team notices?

      That's not irrelevant. Particularly when our two point guards playing ahead of him don't run the offense well, and aren't playing well.

      So what's the excuse from O'brien supporters? "It doesn't matter, he wouldn't make a difference, he was picked in the 50s how good can he be." Well, he runs the offense better than the other two, the offense looks poor, and he's a point guard. I think, personally, that does make a difference. At least our offense won't look so pathetic when we lose.
      Yes- that is my defense- in the long run he's irrelevant. I don't think he'll stick around to be much more than a 10mpg backup guard at best- and you certainly don't need playing time to develop into that role.

      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
      So, let me get this straight. Your position is that we don't need to resolve the defensive weakness against Marquis, instead we attack him with our quicker PG at the offensive end.

      I agree that clearing the paint and attacking Marquis would have been an excellent attack, and I think that it would have improved our scoring. However, I don't believe that waving the white flag on the other end of the court and just conceding that Marquis is going to have his way with our PG is intelligent at all.

      You seem to be stating that we should win the matchup of Marquis against our PG, but unfortunately that matchup takes place at both ends of the court. Unless we were able to get a score on nearly every possession, we were not going to win that battle because Marquis was getting the score or creating a mismatch elsewhere that resulted in a score after we double-teamed. Boston was still probably going to be more efficient in their ability to score on a greater percentage of their possessions.

      Our inability to score was certainly a problem, but whether or not your shots are falling, a primary concern must still be to stop the opponent from scoring. Face it, if you let Boston score on a vast majority of their possessions, your game plan is immensely weak if your retaliatory action is simply to try to outscore them.

      Your pointing out that we did not try to attack Marquis did nothing more than make me have one more gripe about JOB. Since we weren't stopping him, why didn't we attack him? Might have been nice if JOB would have tried it, don't you think?

      But since, he chose not to attempt to attack Marquis, he might as well have tried to stop him, right? Well, I guess not.

      I know that hindsight is almost always perfect. But from my perspective, JOB's decisions and rotations, especially in Q4, leave a whole hell of a lot to be desired. If JOB is half the coach that some think he is, you would think that he'd get it right at least half the time. Yet, if we reviewed the game log for Q4 for every game that was decided by 7-8 points or less, I believe that the tally sheet would weigh heavily on the complaint side of the ledger.

      I don't take exception to JOB's not playing George, Stephenson or Price. That's his perogative. What I do take exception to is not making timely strategic decisions in games and not using players late in games that provided exceptional performance earlier within the same game.
      Well, ok what I thought stated was that we tried too but our point guards were very ineffective. I did think we tried to attack but it didn't work.

      Comment


      • Re: Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

        Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post

        So you think your "side" of the aisle has a monopoly on open-mindedness?
        I don't see how open-mindedness really plays a role anymore. We are at a point where you know what you have with the coach. You either like him, hate him, or have no preference, and it is very unlikely anyone who has been paying any kind of attention the past 3 years will change their mind. I was open-minded towards JOB his first two seasons, I'm sure the majority of people were, but as soon as I realized that the coaching problems I saw his first year weren't going to change towards the end of the second season I became anti-JOB. It isn't because I don't have an open mind, it is because we passed the point of benefit of the doubt. Honestly I'm usually a give the guy 3 years before you make a decision to keep him or not, but I couldn't stand JOB after 2.

        Ever since he has been here he has done the same things that did nothing but hurt the team. The inconsistencies in minutes has been his most consistent attribute, and that is the worst thing any coach can do. An inconsistent coach is a coach that can't be trusted. If the players trust you you will get the most out of the players you have, but if the players do not trust you do not know their role and do not know how much they will play you will not get the most out of your players.

        I don't care what "experts", in sports journalism experts means professional not expert in most fields there are professionals and there are amateurs the difference isn't amount of knowledge or expertise but whether or not you are paid to do it, say about whether or not JOB gets the most out of his team or not the truth during his time here his teams have underachieved. I honestly don't know how they judge it, but based on the talent he has and the talent he has refused to play this team should easily have a winning record, and should have gone to the playoffs last year. JOB is a terrible coach who should never receive a head coaching position again at any level of basketball.

        Comment


        • Re: Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          JOB is a terrible coach who should never receive a head coaching position again at any level of basketball.
          While I can appreciate the sentiment and want him out of here as badly as you do and have apparently for longer than you have (Phoenix game year one should ring a bell to some people) I can't say I agree with this statement.

          Jim is a true believer in his system. That does not mean he can not coach another style, we've seen him do it and do it with some success. But eventually either by design or by circumstance he always manages to find a way to go back to old faithful.

          If he had a team that was designed to play the way he wants to play then yes, I think he could have some success. Championship success? No, but easily playoffs and some success there as well.


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

          Comment


          • Re: Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

            Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
            Actually I think it is Mrs. O'Brien
            Or Jack Ramsey.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • Re: Kravitz: Jim O'Brien's moves are baffling

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              While I can appreciate the sentiment and want him out of here as badly as you do and have apparently for longer than you have (Phoenix game year one should ring a bell to some people) I can't say I agree with this statement.

              Jim is a true believer in his system. That does not mean he can not coach another style, we've seen him do it and do it with some success. But eventually either by design or by circumstance he always manages to find a way to go back to old faithful.

              If he had a team that was designed to play the way he wants to play then yes, I think he could have some success. Championship success? No, but easily playoffs and some success there as well.
              He needs a team of vets that all fit into his system.

              That way, he won't have a rotation issue, and the vets will be smart enough to make adjustments themselves.

              Granted, I think if a coach is unable to do either of those things, he's a poor coach. But if that was given to JOB, he could do a decent job. He'd probably still screw up chemistry by not defining a role for players.

              Comment

              Working...
              X