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

This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

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

  • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

    Originally posted by Really? View Post
    Remember that he is not the only one that is on the court at these times, I would suggest putting up the numbers for everyone, even that does not give 100% of the story, but it does help give some visual statistics to compare.
    In addition some of these advanced analysis get so far away from what is actually going on that it hurts arguments, for example, I just looked at what the +/- was for different rotations involving Turner but it is hard to really get much out of it, hard to tell who what the other lineup was, or what the match ups were, or what role Turner was playing. I think the best thing to do is look at games, what do you see and what do your eyes tell you, to me Turner has his good days and bad days, in some situations he is effective in others not. Typically his play is not a maker or breaker of the teams success or failure but there are random cases where they are. Overall his addition has been okay, it provided us with a healthy body that can give us minutes and occasionally step up in some situations.
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Sorry, I phrased that incorrectly. What I meant was that his +/- was 21 points better than the team's during that time period. By my count, the team's overall plus minus since the trade is -87. His +/- when on the court is a -66. Therefore, he's actually 21 points better than the whole team.
      But these aren't independent samples. Turner factors both into the team's -87 and his own -66.

      I think what we'd need to do is subtract Turner's 295 minutes from the total number of minutes in the games he was here to get his off the court minutes. Then we'd need to examine all the other stats accordingly in those off the court minutes (ie, points per 100 poss., net points, etc.) if we want to compare without tainting samples. 82games really needs to fix their code.
      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

      Comment


      • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

        You might be looking at that incorrectly, Soll. It's not a relative thing. It's absolute. If the team has been outscored by 87 since he *started playing* (Don't forget he sat out the first game) and Evan has been on the court when 66 of those points came off the balance sheet, then he (and the unit he's playing with) *is* responsible for a large portion of the plus minus numbers since he came on. BUT... again... context. That second unit went through a stretch of being terrible, not just Evan. Ian had to get his rear spurred by Bynum... CJ Watson was injured... Scola couldn't shoot the ball into the ocean. I do think the bench has been the larger part of the problem, but I'm guessing the starting unit had a negative +/- also, which is also a huge contrast to their normally league-leading positive +/-. It's been a pretty good team failure.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Sookie has made it very clear that she thinks trading Granger was the biggest reason.
          I read through all four posts, and never saw that statement nor felt like that was what she meant. Maybe give a specific quote where she said it, or where you think she intended to say it?
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

            Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
            But these aren't independent samples. Turner factors both into the team's -87 and his own -66.

            I think what we'd need to do is subtract Turner's 295 minutes from the total number of minutes in the games he was here to get his off the court minutes. Then we'd need to examine all the other stats accordingly in those off the court minutes (ie, points per 100 poss., net points, etc.) if we want to compare without tainting samples. 82games really needs to fix their code.
            True, they aren't independent so I guess my 21 thing is a bit misleading. Still, I don't think his -66 is too damning to him when you factor in that the entire team is at a -87. Also, Paul George is at a -45 himself, and he was an MVP candidate at the beginning of the season. So although it's not completely scientific, I don't think that Turner's -66 is that bad when you look at the entire team's number and the number from our best player.

            The bottom line is that almost everyone has sucked.

            Comment


            • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
              must be just my imagination then its seems to be the #1 most discussed topic for the past month as to why the pacers have been slumping.? good for you bud... don't let the facts stop you from making your point.
              You're right. You saying people calling it the #1 reason, me pointing out that no one has, you agreeing that no one has but saying you don't care that you think they mean it so you'll argue it that way, is me ignoring the facts. I'm glad you cleared that up.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                must be just my imagination then its seems to be the #1 most discussed topic for the past month as to why the pacers have been slumping.? good for you bud... don't let the facts stop you from making your point.
                Because people saying if Granger were here the slump would not have been as pronounced or as prolonged is getting confused with Granger leaving being the entire cause?
                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


                • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Because people saying if Granger were here the slump would not have been as pronounced or as prolonged is getting confused with Granger leaving being the entire cause?
                  He just knows what people really think. The next step in the evolutionary process, mind reading.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    True, they aren't independent so I guess my 21 thing is a bit misleading. Still, I don't think his -66 is too damning to him when you factor in that the entire team is at a -87. Also, Paul George is at a -45 himself, and he was an MVP candidate at the beginning of the season. So although it's not completely scientific, I don't think that Turner's -66 is that bad when you look at the entire team's number and the number from our best player.

                    The bottom line is that almost everyone has sucked.
                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    You might be looking at that incorrectly, Soll. It's not a relative thing. It's absolute. If the team has been outscored by 87 since he *started playing* (Don't forget he sat out the first game) and Evan has been on the court when 66 of those points came off the balance sheet, then he (and the unit he's playing with) *is* responsible for a large portion of the plus minus numbers since he came on. BUT... again... context. That second unit went through a stretch of being terrible, not just Evan. Ian had to get his rear spurred by Bynum... CJ Watson was injured... Scola couldn't shoot the ball into the ocean. I do think the bench has been the larger part of the problem, but I'm guessing the starting unit had a negative +/- also, which is also a huge contrast to their normally league-leading positive +/-. It's been a pretty good team failure.
                    Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                    But these aren't independent samples. Turner factors both into the team's -87 and his own -66.

                    I think what we'd need to do is subtract Turner's 295 minutes from the total number of minutes in the games he was here to get his off the court minutes. Then we'd need to examine all the other stats accordingly in those off the court minutes (ie, points per 100 poss., net points, etc.) if we want to compare without tainting samples. 82games really needs to fix their code.
                    I think you all should read through my previous post I think it pretty much sums it up...
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I read through all four posts, and never saw that statement nor felt like that was what she meant. Maybe give a specific quote where she said it, or where you think she intended to say it?
                      BTW: I believe that's the difference between before Granger and after Granger. Before the Granger trade..they were still playing like a team..but they weren't winning AS much because their shooting had dropped off. Still, if they had continued playing at that level..they'd still be a 1 seed. After Danny..epic collapse.

                      ---------------------------

                      He royally ****ed up the chemistry of a championship team. How many extremely talented teams have gone down in flames because they had poor chemistry? The Pacers aren't extremely talented..they couldn't afford that screw up. Bird got greedy..and got nervous that we might lose Lance.

                      Everyone wants to point fingers at the players and now Frank...but the problem is obvious. And unfortunately, we can't go back in time. It's up to the players to get their mind right and turn the season around. Of course the expectation is that no matter what, the players will act professionally and get the job done. But that's not the reality and that's not how teams work..and Bird should have known better.


                      ------------------------------------

                      THESE are the two people that the board is blaming. When it's obvious that the loss of Granger put this team into a tale spin. People are discussing out of control egos when I'm simply saying that Bird made a relatively large mistake. He shouldn't lose his job for it, but Vogel and Paul don't deserve to be scapegoats either.

                      --------------------------------

                      I think Larry made a huge error. And I think it started this collapse, and now they don't know what to do. I don't really know if Bynum and Turner are an issue, but I doubt they did more destruction than losing Danny. And I'm sure there are more issues, but I think that's what the biggest issue is.


                      .....

                      Seems pretty clear to me that she's putting most of the blame on the Granger trade, especially with what's bolded/underlined.. Again, there's nothing wrong with that and she makes plenty of valid and well thought out points, but it's something that has indeed been said.

                      Comment


                      • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                        I guess so, but I think there's a distinction between the conversation of Danny having an impact in the lockerroom and the style of play.

                        I can agree that it's not THE reason, while thinking the difference is getting away from team basketball, which started at the same time of the trade. I say that because getting away from team basketball is about the style at which Evan plays. He's in a role where the ball is in his hands, and it's been sticking there for too long. Danny's role wasn't to have the ball in his hands. He was a receiver, not a distributor.

                        Are they the same things, Danny's role on the floor vs Danny's role in the lockerroom? I don't think so, even if we're talking about the same player. The discussion about Danny goes back to his role in the lockerroom, being in the young guys ears about staying ready, staying within their role, etc.

                        Getting away from team basketball is more a comment about Evan Turner, and how he plays, than it is about Danny and what he brought to the team IMHO. Semantics? Maybe, but there are different ways to look at it from similiar positions. Only Sookie knows the real intent.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I guess so, but I think there's a distinction between the conversation of Danny having an impact in the lockerroom and the style of play.

                          I can agree that it's not THE reason, while thinking the difference is getting away from team basketball, which started at the same time of the trade. I say that because getting away from team basketball is about the style at which Evan plays. He's in a role where the ball is in his hands, and it's been sticking there for too long. Danny's role wasn't to have the ball in his hands. He was a receiver, not a distributor.

                          Are they the same things, Danny's role on the floor vs Danny's role in the lockerroom? I don't think so, even if we're talking about the same player. The discussion about Danny goes back to his role in the lockerroom, being in the young guys ears about staying ready, staying within their role, etc.

                          Getting away from team basketball is more a comment about Evan Turner, and how he plays, than it is about Danny and what he brought to the team IMHO. Semantics? Maybe, but there are different ways to look at it from similiar positions. Only Sookie knows the real intent.
                          Question I proposed earlier, what was Danny's role in the locker room, how do you know and was there no one else playing that role on our team, and is it a role that someone else could or should have been able to step into.

                          To me that is the questions that need to be answered. Because I don't think the on the court play is/was really that big of a deal.
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post
                            Question I proposed earlier, what was Danny's role in the locker room, how do you know and was there no one else playing that role on our team, and is it a role that someone else could or should have been able to step into.

                            To me that is the questions that need to be answered. Because I don't think the on the court play is/was really that big of a deal.
                            Danny's role was giving young guys guidance. I know this, from comments made my the players on the roster and watching them interact on the bench. Sure, I think there are other players that have a similiar role, like West, but Danny was really the only one that plays a wing position. The game is just different for big men and wings. They see the game differently, they want to play differently. You need multiple voices coming from multiple angles. (But all pulling in the same direction)

                            Evan doesn't have any room to stand to preach to his teammates about much. Paul/Lance are the same experience level as him, and have been through more wars than Evan, in much larger roles. Danny's trade not only had an impact on who is on the floor, and the roles they're expected to play, but also what's being said the in lockerroom. It had to have some level of impact on the team.

                            When you start messing around with chemistry on a team, you're going to have issues. How deep they are, if they can be overcome, etc are all valid questions, but I think it's impossible to just shrug them off and say there isn't, or shouldn't, be any impact.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                              The Pacers should be expected to deal with roster changes, shame on them if they can't. But at the same time, Bird needs to have a feeling for what his team can and cannnot overcome. If a GM is going to tinker, then he gets the blame when the tinkering is followed by lower play. This isn't a zero sum game where one party gets all the blame, and the other is absolved of any. Everyone deserves blame. And that's what Nunt had been saying. "Win as a team, lose as a team."
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Danny's role was giving young guys guidance. I know this, from comments made my the players on the roster and watching them interact on the bench. Sure, I think there are other players that have a similiar role, like West, but Danny was really the only one that plays a wing position. The game is just different for big men and wings. They see the game differently, they want to play differently. You need multiple voices coming from multiple angles.

                                Evan doesn't have any room to stand to preach to his teammates about much. Paul/Lance are the same experience level as him, and have been through more wars than Evan, in much larger roles. Danny's trade not only had an impact on who is on the floor, and the roles they're expected to play, but also what's being said the in lockerroom. It had to have some level of impact on the team.

                                When you start messing around with chemistry on a team, you're going to have issues. How deep they are, if they can be overcome, etc are all valid questions, but I think it's impossible to just shrug them off and say there isn't, or shouldn't, be any impact.

                                At this point, it would be hard to argue that the trade didn't have some effect. As you say, Turner pretty much has no clout with any of these guys. What's he going to say to Lance or PG? He has been in the NBA for the same amount of years as those two, but has far less experience on winning teams. Granger OTOH was the vet who had been with the Pacers since those two were young high school kids. He was the guy who gave his best years to bad teams and then helped usher the team into an exciting new era before unfortunately missing the fun postseason run last year. Everyone on the team understood this, and there's little doubt that they wanted to reward him this year. As you say, Granger had the clout to take Lance and PG aside to give them advice or tell them what they needed to do. Quotes from both players echo that he was an important part of their development, and this was trumpeted by the fact that those two were on their feet pumping the crowd up in DG's first game back.

                                Bird's not an idiot and understood all of this. He had to have known that guys would be upset to see Granger go. But I think he gambled on three things: 1) After playing last year without Granger and going on the deep playoff run, the team would be mature enough to completely survive without him, 2) Turner would be so good that it would more than make up for any intangibles that DG brought, and 3) Granger was a health risk.

                                The main problem with the trade is that Turner just hasn't been very good yet, and that's made the loss of DG's locker room presence look much worse. But I think that Granger missing the last three weeks shows that Bird wasn't out of his mind to worry about DG's health, and I'd be shocked if that didn't play into his mind.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X