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

Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

    What are the odds of Danny Granger being an All Star at some point in his career?

    The Pacers had Granger rated in their top five before the collage draft. So the following speculation is dependent to some degree on their rating. So I ask the question again, 'What are the odds of Danny Granger being an All Star?' Wouldn't the best way to figure those odds be to check the top five players in each NBA draft and see how many made All Star teams? I think it would have some revel ency. To make it even more relevant though you wouldn't want to go back to the NBA's beginnings, just the past 20 years.

    Here's what I found.
    1985
    1 Patrick Ewing..............Y
    2 Wayman Tisdale
    3 Benoit Benjamin
    4 Xavier McDaniel..........Y
    5 Jon Koncak

    1986
    1 Brad Daugherty ........Y
    2 Len Bias
    3 Chris Washburn
    4 Chuck Person
    5 Kenny Walker

    1987
    1 David Robinson..........Y
    2 Armon Gilliam
    3 Dennis Hopson
    4 Reggie Williams
    5 Scottie Pippen...........Y

    1988
    1 Danny Manning........Y
    2 Rik Smits...............Y
    3 Charles Smith
    4 Chris Morris
    5 Mitch Richmond.......Y

    1989
    1 Pervis Ellison
    2 Danny Ferry
    3 Sean Elliott...............Y
    4 Glen Rice.................Y
    5 J.R. Reid

    1990
    1. Derrick Coleman........Y
    2. Gary Payton.............Y
    3. Chris Jackson
    4. Dennis Scott
    5. Kendall Gill


    1991
    1. Larry Johnson.............Y
    2. Kenny Anderson.........Y
    3. Billy Owens
    4. Dikembe Mutombo.......Y
    5. Steve Smith.................Y


    1992
    1. Shaquille O'NeaL.........Y
    2. Alonzo Mourning.........Y
    3. Christian Laettner........Y
    4. Jimmy Jackson
    5. LaPhonso Ellis


    1993
    1. Chris Webber.............Y
    2. Shawn Bradley
    3. Anfernee Hardaway.....Y
    4. Jamal Mashburn.........Y
    5. Isaiah Rider


    1994
    1. Glenn Robinson..........Y
    2. Jason Kidd................Y
    3. Grant Hill...................Y
    4. Donyell Marshall
    5. Juwan Howard...........Y


    1995
    1. Joe Smith
    2. Antonio McDyess.........Y
    3. Jerry Stackhouse..........Y
    4. Rasheed Wallace.........Y
    5. Kevin Garnett...............Y

    1996
    1. Allen Iverson................Y
    2. Marcus Camby
    3. Shareef Abdur-Rahim
    4. Stephon Marbury...........Y
    5. Ray Allen.....................Y


    1997
    1. Tim Duncan..............Y
    2. Keith Van Horn
    3. Chauncey Billups
    4. Antonio Daniels
    5. Tony Battie


    1998
    1. Michael Olowokandi
    2. Mike Bibby
    3. Raef LaFrentz
    4. Antawn Jamison...........Y
    5. Vince Carter................Y


    1999
    1 Elton Brand................Y
    2 Steve Francis..............Y
    3 Baron Davis................Y
    4 Lamar Odom
    5 Jonathan Bender


    2000
    1. Kenyon Martin..........Y
    2. Stromile Swift
    3. Darius Miles
    4. Marcus Fizer
    5. Mike Miller


    2001
    1. Kwame Brown
    2. Tyson Chandler
    3. Pau Gasol
    4. Eddy Curry
    5. Jason Richardson


    2002
    1. Yao Ming....................Y
    2. Jay Williams
    3. Mike Dunleavy
    4. Drew Gooden
    5. Nickoloz Tskitishvili


    2003
    1. Lebron James.............Y
    2. Darko Milicic
    3. Carmelo Anthony
    4. Chris Bosh
    5. Dwyane Wade............Y


    2004
    1. Dwight Howard
    2. Emeka Okafor
    3. Ben Gordon
    4. Shaun Livingston
    5. Devin Harris


    I could have missed someone, but the results are 43 of the top five draftees in the last 20 years have made an all star team. That's 43%. However, I know longer think it's relevant the way I did it because the longer a player plays in the league the better he gets and his odds of making the All Star team rises.

    I don't know what the optimum years would be, but dropping the last five years will give a more actuate result. From 1985 though 1999, 39 of the top five draftees out of 75 players made the All Star team. That's 52 %. Looking at it objectively I would say Danny Granger is close to even money to make an All Star team during his career.

    That's if he was picked in the top five, since he wasn't, I would say his odds are still 50%. (grin)
    ---------------------------

    I was looking at team salaries on Hoopshype the other day and figured the Pacers would have to pay out about 12 million in luxury tax and get back about 4. Of course my figures are all wet again because payrolls will change. Hoopshype hasn't even updated their figures. However, if the team payrolls listed were what they would be at the end of the year, seven teams would have to pay the luxury tax. The luxury tax this coming year will be $61.7 million. That would mean the Knicks would pay $48 million. Dallas would pay $41 million. Philly would pay $15 million. Orlando would pay$7.5 million. Memphis would pay $2 million. Sacramento would pay $200 thousand. And the Pacers would pay about $11 million. Add those up and you have $124.7 million in luxury taxes. Divide that among all 30 teams and each team gets $4.1 million. That makes the Pacers paying out about $7 million.

    All that proves is if we get the correct payroll figures of each team we can figure out how much each team has to pay or how much they get back. Yeah, this was much ado about nothing since teams aren't even close to finalizing their lineups. (grin)
    --------------------------

    The new Collective Bargaining Agreement says this, ARTICLE XXIV: PROHIBITION OF NO-TRADE CONTRACTS

    Section 1. General Limitation.
    No Player Contract may contain any prohibition or limitation of an NBA Team’s right to assign such Contract to another NBA Team.

    Section 2. Exceptions to General Limitation.
    Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 of this Article XXIV:

    (b) A Player Contract entered into by a player who has eight (8) or more Years of Service in the NBA and who has rendered four (4) or more Years of Service for the Team entering into such Contract may contain a prohibition or limitation of such Team’s right to trade such Contract to another NBA Team.
    ------------

    The Pacer's don't have anyone that would even qualify for this. Austin Croshere is starting his 8th year of service, and he's been with the Pacers from the start. I doubt if he has a no trade cause in his contract though.

    Actually his salary has been as effective as a no trade cause. (grin)

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

    Did you know that players get reimbursed for “reasonable” moving expenses?

    Did you know that traded players can be reimbursed by the assignee-Team for the cost of his living quarters (either rent or mortgage expense), for a period of three months after the date of the trade; provided, however, that such payment shall be made only if and to the extent that the player is legally obligated for such costs, and shall not exceed $4,000 per month.

    Did you know when players are on the road they get $102.00 for meal expenses?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

    Originally posted by Will Galen
    Did you know when players are on the road they get $102.00 for meal expenses?
    No wonder why Spree can't feed his family.
    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

    ----------------- Reggie Miller

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

      The biggest question is, if Granger lives up to his pre-draft hype, then what does Indy do at the SF position in a year or 2? Obviously, a full potential Granger is starter material, but Artest is an All-Star. Do we move Artest? Move Granger? Keep Granger as the backup untill he demands a trade a la the Al Harrington situation? Maybe Artest will be banned from the NBA by then?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

        Originally posted by Naptown Seth
        The biggest question is, if Granger lives up to his pre-draft hype, then what does Indy do at the SF position in a year or 2? Obviously, a full potential Granger is starter material, but Artest is an All-Star. Do we move Artest? Move Granger? Keep Granger as the backup untill he demands a trade a la the Al Harrington situation? Maybe Artest will be banned from the NBA by then?

        Maybe Granger moves in as a solid 6th man and in a few years just before Artest's contract is up (proving he will have been a good boy) his value will be that of a max player. Therefore the Pacers will be able to resign/trade Artest for a wealth of cheap young talent ala DD -> JO trade. Granger will move into the starting sf spot.

        Just a guess.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

          Great post Will.
          :thepacers
          No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

            Originally posted by NorCal_Pacerfan
            Great post Will.

            indeed

            Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
            Bum in Berlin on Myspace

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

              You did your homework.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                Yes that per diem is nice, very nice. I could do a lot on a $100.00 a day.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                  They get 102 dollars? Why 102? Why not just a solid 100.
                  Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                    Originally posted by TruWarier
                    They get 102 dollars? Why 102? Why not just a solid 100.
                    That's to pay for the new 2% tax for the Colts stadium.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                      Great post... the only problem that I see is that Granger, despite being ranked in the top 5 by the Pacers, got drafted 17th...

                      Clearly if you include all those who had been ranked in the top 5 by teams before a draft, you'd probably have a number much less than 50%...

                      I'd say the odds are actually against Granger (though I really like him as a player)
                      Here, everyone have a : on me

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                        Originally posted by ILovethePacers
                        Great post... the only problem that I see is that Granger, despite being ranked in the top 5 by the Pacers, got drafted 17th...

                        Clearly if you include all those who had been ranked in the top 5 by teams before a draft, you'd probably have a number much less than 50%...

                        I'd say the odds are actually against Granger (though I really like him as a player)
                        Agreed. And I don't think the Pacers REALLY had him in their top 5 or they wouldn't have bothered bringing him in for a workout.
                        Regardless, you can't count him as a top 5 pick when he got picked 17th..

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                          Originally posted by ILovethePacers
                          Great post... the only problem that I see is that Granger, despite being ranked in the top 5 by the Pacers, got drafted 17th...

                          Clearly if you include all those who had been ranked in the top 5 by teams before a draft, you'd probably have a number much less than 50%...
                          Yeah, all due respect to Will, Granger wasn't a top-5 pick. Larry rated him that high, but 16 other teams didn't. Granger was projected top-10, but only a few scouts had him at top 5.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                            Originally posted by PacerMan
                            Agreed. And I don't think the Pacers REALLY had him in their top 5 or they wouldn't have bothered bringing him in for a workout.
                            Supposedly he only came in to help work somebody else out. It was a favor from his agent to Larry.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Pacer Prattle, or, much ado about nothing.

                              Originally posted by PacerMan
                              Agreed. And I don't think the Pacers REALLY had him in their top 5 or they wouldn't have bothered bringing him in for a workout.
                              Regardless, you can't count him as a top 5 pick when he got picked 17th..

                              Larry was quoted saying that he appologized to Danny after his workout, saying that he wasted his time by bringing him into Indy.

                              Also, it's pretty obvious that most people had him going way before 17th, if they refer to him as the steal of the draft considering Greene went 18th and was slotted in the top ten in every mock draft I saw.

                              To go along with that, the Pacers were trying to do a draft day trade to get the Bobcats #13 pick hoping he'd still be there on that number.

                              But all in all, I guess Tor. did need to use their lottery pick for Charlie V. to back up Chris Bosh.
                              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X