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

"I'm staying with the Pacers."

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

  • #46
    Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
    Name a better PG not on his rookie contract who is paid less.


    I an disgusted by those type of comments.. Look at Hills production from last year and compare to Mike Conley, Hill is better across the board
    minus Assist and Steals.. Hill is better at everything else and yet we have guys here, Who will do anything for Conley..

    SMH.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

      If Lance continues at this pace then Danny is gone. Could see him getting 8-10mil easy. Maybe even more since he will be on the open market. Derozan got 4/10 as a contract extension for a similar level of play.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
        Name a better PG not on his rookie contract who is paid less.
        I've gone through this before, but there are roughly 10-15 point/combo guards of similar or superior ability to Hill making less than $8mil per. And the fact you had to throw in "not on his rookie contract" proves my point. Players can come into this league and instantly make an impact as a point guard for 1/4 the price. It's the deepest position in the league for a reason.

        And what disgusts me more than anything, is the person who wants to come on here and use nothing but "stats" as opposed to basketball understanding as their argument. Every team in the league would take Conley over Hill as their starting point guard because he's superior in nearly every facet that the point guard position demands. He's arguably the top defensive point guard in the league, whereas Hill gets torched by any competent player opposite of him. Conley also sets up his teammates and places them in a position to score far better than Hill, who struggles to even make the entry pass into our big men, thus the reason we turned to George and Stephenson to feed the post. Conley is also the superior attacker of the rim and finisher. Hill might be a better midrange shooter, but when you are afraid to even attempt to shoot half the time, should that really be considered?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          And what disgusts me more than anything, is the person who wants to come on here and use nothing but "stats" as opposed to basketball understanding as their argument. Every team in the league would take Conley over Hill as their starting point guard because he's superior in nearly every facet that the point guard position demands. He's arguably the top defensive point guard in the league, whereas Hill gets torched by any competent player opposite of him. Conley also sets up his teammates and places them in a position to score far better than Hill, who struggles to even make the entry pass into our big men, thus the reason we turned to George and Stephenson to feed the post. Conley is also the superior attacker of the rim and finisher. Hill might be a better midrange shooter, but when you are afraid to even attempt to shoot half the time, should that really be considered?
          This whole paragraph is hilarious. Afraid to shoot? Can't make an entry pass? Whys he even in the league then! Your pension for hyperbole really makes it hard to believe you're capable of actual analysis.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
            This whole paragraph is hilarious. Afraid to shoot? Can't make an entry pass? Whys he even in the league then! Your pension for hyperbole really makes it hard to believe you're capable of actual analysis.
            Hill doesn't struggle to make an entry pass or even handle the ball against pressure? Hill doesn't look to get the ball in George or Lance's hands the moment he crosses half court? Hill isn't constantly called out for lacking aggression as a shooter/scorer? Wonder if you even watch the Pacers play.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
              This whole paragraph is hilarious. Afraid to shoot? Can't make an entry pass? Whys he even in the league then! Your pension for hyperbole really makes it hard to believe you're capable of actual analysis.
              Plus the Ben Hansbrough love fest and only popping up to hate on a Pacers player hurts credibility as well.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                Plus the Ben Hansbrough love fest and only popping up to hate on a Pacers player hurts credibility as well.
                Refute the comments regarding that comparison then. Hill is a decent player and would be great for our team if he was making no more than $5mil per. However, since the Pacers refuse to pay luxury tax, the fact that Hill is overpaid could greatly hinder their ability to re-sign somebody far more important to the immediate and future success of this franchise, in Lance Stephenson. You also must consider how many quality players there are at the point guard position and the fact that so many players on rookie contracts are on par with or superior to Hill. The $$$ spent on Hill simply isn't worth it and could bite us in the *** in the long run.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                  Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                  Refute the comments regarding that comparison then. Hill is a decent player and would be great for our team if he was making no more than $5mil per. However, since the Pacers refuse to pay luxury tax, the fact that Hill is overpaid could greatly hinder their ability to re-sign somebody far more important to the immediate and future success of this franchise, in Lance Stephenson. You also must consider how many quality players there are at the point guard position and the fact that so many players on rookie contracts are on par with or superior to Hill. The $$$ spent on Hill simply isn't worth it and could bite us in the *** in the long run.
                  Hill is not overpaid. You know who else makes 8mil a year? Jameer Nelson and Rodney Stucky.

                  Still waiting for that list of point guards you would take over Hill? With so many quality point guards that are better than Hill I'm sure you could easily come up with 5.
                  Last edited by freeannyong; 11-03-2013, 10:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                    This man has obviously not watched Mike Conley in the playoffs.. You want to see scared? See him vs the Spurs. Hill while not perfect in the post season, Has attempted and made huge shots. Did Miami give him trouble? You bet your sweet *** they did. But hey, They made Tony Parker look like a 45 year old Dleague player in the finals, With there super fast defense.

                    Not to mention that Hill has lowered his T.O% every single year in his career and last year he had the lowest T.O% in the league.. Also, Indiana will never be a good place for a ball dominant PG and specially now with George playing Point Forward.

                    But ignore the stats and keep believing in the things you see, Because we both have been watching something opposite players. The only PG's that I recall burning constantly is, Westbrook and Deron Williams.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                      Money talks.....

                      If Miami offered him the max and the Pacers offered him the minimum....im sure he WONT be staying with the Pacers!
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        Thus the issue with paying an average point guard $8mil per. Hill's horrid contract could cost us dearly, if not dealt.
                        Average point guard are paid $8mil per all around the league. Look at the contract that Teague, Conley and Dragic signed. They are in the same $7.5-$8.5mil range. That's the NBA market for those players.
                        Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                        Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                        Panopticon

                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Average point guard are paid $8mil per all around the league. Look at the contract that Teague, Conley and Dragic signed. They are in the same $7.5-$8.5mil range. That's the NBA market for those players.
                          I totally agree with you on this.....$8 mil is the price range for a starting PG.

                          However, part of the problem, I think is that there is the perception that GH isn't a True PG...but a ComboGuard that doesn't run the point like Teague/Conley/Dragic...and therefore dish out the assist on the same level as those Players. I can see how some may think that this may translate into lower $$$.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                            Refute the comments regarding that comparison then. Hill is a decent player and would be great for our team if he was making no more than $5mil per.
                            You just can't get guys at Hill's level for less than $7-8 million a year. If you look at this list of all the guards (PG, SG or combo guards) in the league who had a 16 PER or better last year, they almost all make in that range or more. The main exception is those guys who have big flaws in their game like Vazquez or Nate Robinson, usually on defense which doesn't show up in PER.

                            It wasn't a question of getting Hill at a cheaper price, it was a question of paying Hill the market value or just not signing him. So the Pacers had to decide, do we want Hill at 8 a year, or do we not want Hill at all.

                            1 Chris Paul 2012-13 27 LAC NBA 70 70 2335 412 856 76 232 286 323 53 209 262 678 169 10 159 143 1186 .481 .328 .885 26.4 13.9
                            2 James Harden 2012-13 23 HOU NBA 78 78 2985 585 1337 179 486 674 792 62 317 379 455 142 38 295 178 2023 .438 .368 .851 23.0 12.8
                            3 Russell Westbrook 2012-13 24 OKC NBA 82 82 2861 673 1535 97 300 460 575 111 317 428 607 145 24 273 189 1903 .438 .323 .800 23.9 11.6
                            4 Stephen Curry 2012-13 24 GSW NBA 78 78 2983 626 1388 272 600 262 291 59 255 314 539 126 12 240 198 1786 .451 .453 .900 21.3 11.2
                            5 Kobe Bryant 2012-13 34 LAL NBA 78 78 3013 738 1595 132 407 525 626 66 367 433 469 106 25 287 173 2133 .463 .324 .839 23.0 10.9
                            6 Deron Williams 2012-13 28 BRK NBA 78 78 2842 495 1124 169 447 317 369 29 203 232 604 75 30 218 194 1476 .440 .378 .859 20.3 10.9
                            7 Mike Conley 2012-13 25 MEM NBA 80 80 2757 414 940 106 293 234 282 43 182 225 487 174 24 189 171 1168 .440 .362 .830 18.3 9.9
                            8 George Hill 2012-13 26 IND NBA 76 76 2620 386 871 130 353 174 213 47 237 284 355 81 26 116 134 1076 .443 .368 .817 16.6 9.7
                            9 Dwyane Wade 2012-13 31 MIA NBA 69 69 2391 569 1093 17 66 308 425 86 258 344 352 128 56 194 140 1463 .521 .258 .725 24.0 9.6
                            10 Tony Parker 2012-13 30 SAS NBA 66 66 2174 519 995 24 68 279 330 18 180 198 499 54 6 170 92 1341 .522 .353 .845 23.0 9.3
                            11 Jose Calderon 2012-13 31 TOT NBA 73 58 2160 312 635 130 282 72 80 20 156 176 518 58 8 126 99 826 .491 .461 .900 18.8 7.4
                            12 Ty Lawson 2012-13 25 DEN NBA 73 71 2513 448 971 85 232 235 311 36 162 198 501 107 8 182 135 1216 .461 .366 .756 17.9 7.4
                            13 Kevin Martin 2012-13 29 OKC NBA 77 0 2136 350 778 158 371 219 246 31 147 178 106 72 8 101 138 1077 .450 .426 .890 16.0 7.0
                            14 J.R. Smith 2012-13 27 NYK NBA 80 0 2678 527 1249 155 436 237 311 64 361 425 218 100 24 134 226 1446 .422 .356 .762 17.6 6.7
                            15 Jeff Teague 2012-13 24 ATL NBA 80 78 2628 439 974 89 248 199 226 25 155 180 579 117 28 230 181 1166 .451 .359 .881 16.8 6.1
                            16 Nate Robinson 2012-13 28 CHI NBA 82 23 2086 399 921 141 348 135 169 29 155 184 358 85 10 144 207 1074 .433 .405 .799 17.4 5.9
                            17 Brandon Jennings 2012-13 23 MIL NBA 80 80 2897 497 1247 173 461 230 281 59 187 246 521 125 10 203 155 1397 .399 .375 .819 16.1 5.8
                            18 Damian Lillard 2012-13 22 POR NBA 82 82 3167 553 1288 185 503 271 321 42 215 257 531 74 19 243 172 1562 .429 .368 .844 16.4 5.8
                            19 Goran Dragic 2012-13 26 PHO NBA 77 77 2581 401 906 88 276 244 326 60 178 238 569 124 26 212 214 1134 .443 .319 .748 17.5 5.7
                            20 Darren Collison 2012-13 25 DAL NBA 81 47 2372 341 724 48 136 242 275 31 188 219 415 100 8 173 139 972 .471 .353 .880 16.3 5.6
                            21 Kyle Lowry 2012-13 26 TOR NBA 68 52 2020 250 623 101 279 190 239 56 265 321 435 94 24 157 218 791 .401 .362 .795 17.5 5.6
                            22 Jamal Crawford 2012-13 32 LAC NBA 76 0 2230 445 1016 149 396 216 248 22 106 128 193 79 13 146 71 1255 .438 .376 .871 16.8 5.4
                            23 Kyrie Irving 2012-13 20 CLE NBA 59 59 2048 484 1070 109 279 248 290 34 182 216 350 89 21 191 146 1325 .452 .391 .855 21.4 5.3
                            24 Isaiah Thomas 2012-13 23 SAC NBA 79 62 2122 366 832 115 321 253 287 29 132 161 316 67 3 140 167 1100 .440 .358 .882 17.5 5.0
                            25 Kemba Walker 2012-13 22 CHA NBA 82 82 2859 526 1244 107 332 296 371 60 223 283 471 160 31 200 153 1455 .423 .322 .798 18.8 4.8
                            26 Monta Ellis 2012-13 27 MIL NBA 82 82 3076 597 1436 94 328 289 374 45 271 316 496 169 36 254 164 1577 .416 .287 .773 16.2 4.6
                            27 Manu Ginobili 2012-13 35 SAS NBA 60 0 1393 229 539 83 235 164 206 30 171 201 274 80 13 132 114 705 .425 .353 .796 19.0 4.5
                            28 John Wall 2012-13 22 WAS NBA 49 42 1602 324 735 12 45 246 306 35 161 196 373 65 37 157 117 906 .441 .267 .804 20.8 4.5
                            29 Tyreke Evans 2012-13 23 SAC NBA 65 61 2016 366 765 45 133 210 271 56 231 287 229 90 27 128 133 987 .478 .338 .775 18.1 4.4
                            30 Greivis Vasquez 2012-13 26 NOH NBA 78 78 2685 438 1012 83 243 124 154 43 294 337 704 66 6 247 190 1083 .433 .342 .805 16.3 3.8
                            31 Eric Bledsoe 2012-13 23 LAC NBA 76 12 1553 253 568 31 78 106 134 78 147 225 233 109 55 137 112 643 .445 .397 .791 17.5 3.7
                            32 Gerald Henderson 2012-13 25 CHA NBA 68 58 2133 382 855 33 100 258 313 55 195 250 177 68 34 108 149 1055 .447 .330 .824 16.4 3.3
                            33 Jrue Holiday 2012-13 22 PHI NBA 78 78 2926 555 1288 91 247 182 242 89 240 329 625 123 32 292 170 1383 .431 .368 .752 16.7 3.3
                            34 Rajon Rondo 2012-13 26 BOS NBA 38 38 1423 225 465 12 50 60 93 43 169 212 420 70 9 148 96 522 .484 .240 .645 18.1 3.2
                            35 Marcus Thornton 2012-13 25 SAC NBA 72 8 1726 332 774 141 379 111 126 50 131 181 91 61 4 68 105 916 .429 .372 .881 16.3 3.2
                            36 Ricky Rubio 2012-13 22 MIN NBA 57 47 1691 185 514 27 92 211 264 44 185 229 418 137 5 172 143 608 .360 .293 .799 16.2 3.0
                            37 Ramon Sessions 2012-13 26 CHA NBA 61 0 1652 276 676 33 107 291 347 27 142 169 230 48 7 104 91 876 .408 .308 .839 17.7 2.9
                            38 Will Bynum 2012-13 30 DET NBA 65 0 1219 253 540 24 76 106 131 28 69 97 231 45 5 125 128 636 .469 .316 .809 16.6 1.7
                            Data courtesy Basketball-Reference.com.


                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              I do not doubt that there is loyalty from Lance to the Pacers......if not mostly to Bird himself, but IMHO....everything comes down to $$$$.

                              Given that Lance will become a UFA in July 2014....what advantage does that Pacers have over other Teams to re-sign Lance ( if any )?
                              Bird and West...Lance has completely changed his demographic and stance...From pushing women down stairs and doing the cut throat sign ala Benoit to becoming what we need in the future....This team really excites me how much they actually LOVE playing together...thats 94-95 stuff
                              My video of Reggie greeting his loyal fans at the red carpet premiere of "Winning Time".

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                How much are we gonna have to pay him? After he makes the all-star team this year, his price will raise significantly. He will easily be more expensive than G Hill, and probably be worth close to Hibbert money
                                That's a good point and one I didn't think was possible before the season. If Lance makes the All-Star team or wins a Most Improved player award, that's going to drive his price above the 6 million that the Pacers can probably afford to pay him without dipping into the tax.

                                That could be a problem but it's still a good problem to have because if Lance continues playing this well all season long, they Pacers championship chances go up exponentially.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X