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

Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

    Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
    We are miles off OKC do we have a superstar no heck we dont even have a single player that is as good as Harden or Westbrook

    not even the same area code
    Yeah I stopped reading at "the Pacers are the OKC of the east" part.
    Last edited by vnzla81; 09-11-2012, 11:50 AM.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

      I get the magazine at home and didn't even see us listed at 4 until I went all the way through the list and then back to the top. Just wasn't expecting us to be so high.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Yeah I stopped reading at "the Pacers are the OKC of the east" part.
        If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. . And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

          Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
          If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. . And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.
          Does efficient mean from a fiscal standpoint? Then the efficiency is what is keeping us from being elite.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

            Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
            If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. . And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.
            Yes I almost finish reading the whole thing until I got to that part and then I was looking to see if this was some article from thebleacherreport people.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Yes I almost finish reading the whole thing until I got to that part and then I was looking to see if this was some article from thebleacherreport people.
              "could be the" is not the same as "are the" - it means it could happen given other events than are in place now. You could argue that those actions might never take place for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that the Pacers are only those actions away from going to the next level.

              There seems to be a real need on this board to say that nothing the Pacers will do, could do, or could even possibly conceive of doing can take them to any level comparable to any team in the top 10 of the NBA. Even when someone completely outside the realm of Pacer fans makes a comparison we dismiss it out of hand.

              At some point we have to accept that there actually are some good things about where this team is, and that "what if" comparisons aren't completely off-base. WILL it happen - that's a basis for discussion. Is it POSSIBLE - how is that somehow in and of itself out of the realm of rational thought?
              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


              • #22
                Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                Does efficient mean from a fiscal standpoint? Then the efficiency is what is keeping us from being elite.
                I don't know. Middling draft picks and the lack of top tier free agent sis to blame for that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

                  I agree what we need is somebody to develop into a star. Possibly George. That way we can get some BS calls to help us out. If Hibbert and George both achieve what we know they can achieve. I would say we are the best team in the East if one of the Big 3 is severely hobbled. Lakers on the other hand, who knows they could be amazing or flop this year

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    "could be the" is not the same as "are the" - it means it could happen given other events than are in place now. You could argue that those actions might never take place for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that the Pacers are only those actions away from going to the next level.

                    There seems to be a real need on this board to say that nothing the Pacers will do, could do, or could even possibly conceive of doing can take them to any level comparable to any team in the top 10 of the NBA. Even when someone completely outside the realm of Pacer fans makes a comparison we dismiss it out of hand.

                    At some point we have to accept that there actually are some good things about where this team is, and that "what if" comparisons aren't completely off-base. WILL it happen - that's a basis for discussion. Is it POSSIBLE - how is that somehow in and of itself out of the realm of rational thought?
                    My point is that there shouldn't be a comparison between the Pacers and OKC, it's not even close, they have two Superstars(Westbrook/Durant) and two really good players with the potential to be All Stars for years to come(Ibaka/Harden) note that the guys with "potential" are already showing what they can do, not only that but they have a true young core, their top five players are really young and are going to hit their primes at the same time.

                    Now let's compare all that to the Pacers, Superstar player? nope, All Star? Roy Hibbert, players with potential that could be an all star? I'm going to name Paul George just for the sake of discussion, I like Hill but I don't think he is ever going to be an AS and then you look at Danny(29) and Dwest(32) and they are up there in age making them "not part of the future".

                    So at the end of the day in few years when the youngsters of both teams hit their primes OKC will probably have, Westbrook,Harden, Durant, Ibaka, Perkins and Indiana will probably have, Hill, Paul George, Hibbert and two x players, so unless you think that the Pacers have a chance to get two superstars the comparison to OKC is never going to work.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      My point is that there shouldn't be a comparison between the Pacers and OKC, it's not even close, they have two Superstars(Westbrook/Durant) and two really good players with the potential to be All Stars for years to come(Ibaka/Harden) note that the guys with "potential" are already showing what they can do, not only that but they have a true young core, their top five players are really young and are going to hit their primes at the same time.

                      Now let's compare all that to the Pacers, Superstar player? nope, All Star? Roy Hibbert, players with potential that could be an all star? I'm going to name Paul George just for the sake of discussion, I like Hill but I don't think he is ever going to be an AS and then you look at Danny(29) and Dwest(32) and they are up there in age making them "not part of the future".

                      So at the end of the day in few years when the youngsters of both teams hit their primes OKC will probably have, Westbrook,Harden, Durant, Ibaka, Perkins and Indiana will probably have, Hill, Paul George, Hibbert and two x players, so unless you think that the Pacers have a chance to get two superstars the comparison to OKC is never going to work.
                      Hibbert is an All-Star, and still has upside, could be a perrenial all-star when it is said and done. George has potential to be a star, and at the very least should end up being an elite complimentary player. Hill doesn't need to be an All-Star for the Pacers to compete at a high level, just a very good player, which I don't think is out of his reach. Granger, and West both don't rely on athleticism for their games, decline should be slow, and West should actually be improved next year since he'll be healthy the whole time, and if Granger plays like 2nd half of the season Granger, rather than first half, he very well could make the All-Star game next year too, he still has lots of success around the league, and if he isn't shooting an abnormally horrible percent for the first half of the season he'll probably make the game next year if the Pacers are a top 3 seed, which is very possible.

                      Yes we don't have the talent of OKC, but they are probably going to have to move Harden after overpaying Ibaka, and if things go well we can compete with OKC, and Miami, though as underdogs, but not pushovers even compared to them.

                      We're never going to be favorites over teams like that, but we have the potential to be Darkhorses.

                      You don't need superstars to compete at the highest level. Is it easier? Sure, but our 90's team had no superstars, and we were 2 minutes away from sending Michael Jordan home packing. The Blazers didn't have a traditional superstar, and nearly took out the lakers multiple times, the Pistons had no superstar and won a championship. It isn't easy, but that is the lot of most teams.

                      Who here is comparing our raw "talent" to teams like Miami or OKC? They aren't, but we've proven to be able to compete with teams like that, a punchers chance isn't out of the question if things fall into place correctly. We aren't without talent either. If George reaches the all-star level 2 years from now we'll have 4 All stars or former all-stars still playing at a high level in our starting lineup. We didn't have the 5th best record in the NBA by accident.

                      Call it a fluke for now, but will you at least admit that Indy is doing something right if we win 50+ games this season?

                      Basketball isn't as simple as looking at names on paper and calling the winner, we've had more success than most teams in the NBA, and you can argue that we've NEVER outside of a very brief period with JO ever had what was unanimously considered a "superstar". Despite that we've made numerous conference finals, the NBA finals, and been a consistent playoff team for the greater part of the last 20+ years.
                      Last edited by daschysta; 09-11-2012, 10:17 PM.
                      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

                        Way too many ifs, "if West is gets younger", "if Danny plays like he played for a month last year", "if Paul George becomes an all star", "if Roy Hibbert gets better and becomes a perennial all star", with OKC I don't see any ifs, Durant and Westbrook are Superstars and Ibaka/Harden/Perkins are good young players.

                        And just so you know I expect the Pacers to get close to 50 wins, to me they are build for the regular season but not for the playoffs.
                        Last edited by vnzla81; 09-11-2012, 10:35 PM.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

                          I mean Reggie is a hall of famer now so it's kind of tough to make the whole "90's Pacers didn't have a superstar" comment, I totally get where you're coming from and agree with you, but I think it's tough not to call Reggie a star.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

                            Kendrick Perkins is going to be 28, is about to have his 10th year in the league, and already started to show signs of tailing off last year. I don't think I can consider him a very good young player. But yes OKC is significantly better than we are. Of course the 2004-2005 Pacers were significantly better than heck maybe the entire league, but we saw how that went down.

                            The point? Anything can happen. And I do think we can all agree the Pacers aren't in some bleak desert of doom right now.
                            Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-12-2012, 12:36 AM.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Way too many ifs, "if West is gets younger", "if Danny plays like he played for a month last year", "if Paul George becomes an all star", "if Roy Hibbert gets better and becomes a perennial all star", with OKC I don't see any ifs, Durant and Westbrook are Superstars and Ibaka/Harden/Perkins are good young players.

                              And just so you know I expect the Pacers to get close to 50 wins, to me they are build for the regular season but not for the playoffs.
                              Well the ifs aren't really that huge of ifs, every team has ifs. West doesn't have to get younger, but he will be healthier than he was for the majority of last season, that is a fact barring another injury. He was putting up 15-6 in 29 mpg on 55 percent from the field in april, once he was reportedly feeling like himself, and he was one of our better players in the playoffs. It seems to be a pretty obvious that West would be improved over his early season form once he was fully healthy, remember ACL injuries like his often take well over a year to fully round back into form.

                              As for Granger it is a fact that a such a long slump is indeed an outlier, Danny's 2nd half performance is much closer to his career norms (around 44 percent 38-39 percent from 3...) than Danny's 1st half performance. At the very least he shouldn't shoot 35 percent from the field for an entire half season. Danny is still a very good player, I expect him to have a pretty good year.

                              George is potential yes, of course it is a "what if" but he does have that potenail, and is already a very good young player, just like Ibaka.

                              Hibbert is on the brink as well, would you not agree that many of our problems stemmed from our inability to feed the ball to Roy in the post? I have to think a good coach like Vogel can fix a problem that seems so trivial. Hibbert isn't far away from the consistent all-star level, he just needs to play 2 or 3 more minutes per game, and get more touches. He already averages 15.5-10.6-2-2.4 per 36, and I have faith in the guy to improve his game each year. I believe that he'll meet the challenge that comes with a big contract, and deliver, he just needs to improve a bit while maintaining his per minute production over a few more minutes, he's already a very good player.


                              I'm not arguing that we have more raw talent than OKC, but it seems we can play with the big boys about as well as they can. After all we did take the Heat to 6 games, and they only took them to 5, even had Bosh been dressed in our series we would have at least won a game too (the 19 point blowout was our win regardless of Bosh's absence.)

                              I don't buy that we won't improve with experience, and through acquired chemistry. We already won 53 equivalent games last season, we're already a very good team, if George even reaches a chunk of his potential, and Hibbert improves marginally we are looking at a team that can win 55ish games.

                              OKC has tons of talent, an absolute ton, they also aren't invincible, and neither are the Heat. We won't be favorites, but I don't believe that a team that, even in a cynics opinion such as your's is likely around a 50 win squad merits such eternal pessimism. It isn't like we've peaked in all likelyhood. Like I said, teams have gone very far, even our own, without a superstar player. Sure it is easier with a top 10 or whatever player, but great post-season success by teams structured like ours isn't really unprecedented.

                              For example ECF isn't in any way out of the question for us next season , especially if we pick up the 2nd seed and Boston picks up the 3rd, thus playing Miami in the 2nd round, I would consider that to be a great building block, and a successful season.

                              I don't buy Brooklyn, New York, Philly or Chicago without Rose being better than us next season. New York has a superstar, and they lost in embarrassing fashion by an average of 14 points. We won two games, and took Miami to 6 games with a margin of 6.5 points in Miami's favor on average, and our series was actually competitive in 3 of the Miami victories, whereas New York posed no serious challenge in any of the games aside from the one. Superstar Chris Paul's Clipper's were effortlessly swept by San Antonio, who no longer has any superstar players.

                              Superstar players are good to have, but the situation without "superstars" isn't so grim as you would tell it. It isn't like any team other than SAS/LAL/MIA/OKC are significantly better than we are, we fit nicely into the next group of 2nd tier teams, along with 4 or 5 other teams, and still have some upside. It isn't a bad place to be.
                              Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                I mean Reggie is a hall of famer now so it's kind of tough to make the whole "90's Pacers didn't have a superstar" comment, I totally get where you're coming from and agree with you, but I think it's tough not to call Reggie a star.
                                Reggie was a star, certainly, but was he a superstar in any given year? He was great at what he did, he was one of the all time greats in terms of efficiency, but he wasn't the prototypical model of a superstar, in the mold of a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant etc... one that effected the game on both ends greatly, and could just bury you every single night. Reggie was a star, but I don't think that he was a superstar in the mold that vnzla is referring. Reggie is my all time favorite player, but he was a superstar at one thing only, scoring the ball efficiently, most players that have that rank are either guys that can score dominately in isolation and off the dribble, and players that effect the game on both ends at an elite level/ across multiple domains.

                                Reggie wasn't that, he was amazing, but he was never that, but i'm assuming VN is referring to guys like LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Prime Kobe, Shaq, Bird vein. Reggie was a star player, he'd be our best player, but we have "star players" (guys capable of making an All-Star team) in David West, Granger, and Hibbert, and hopefully before too long, Paul George.
                                Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X