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

Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

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

  • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Lance is the exception. His baggage kept him out of top 5. Just help him unload it and we get there.


    His baggage kept him out of the first round--he was never going to be a top 5 pick.

    Comment


    • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      He's not won it or even come remotely close. Paul is great and all...but he's not LeBron, Jordan...or even Durant level. I suppose if you are satisfied with second place he might lead you there. We will have to have the stars to align to win it given our approach.
      So basically you are saying we need one of the two best players in the NBA to win a title? Who on the Spurs is on Durant's level?

      Comment


      • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        lol. Just look at the redrafts... He is top 5
        Hell, in that redraft he's top 3.

        Comment


        • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

          Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
          Seems so unfair we got bounced from the playoffs because we lost to a great team on their home court fighting for home court advantage while the nets beat the tanking magic in brooklyn. Are the nets even proud they got that last spot from us?
          Why wouldn't they be? They went on one hell of a winning streak to end the year (other than a slide at the very end) and most importantly they beat us (soundly) twice to earn that spot.

          I'd say they have every right to be proud and we should suffer the shame of knowing that all we had to do was beat them once and we would be in there.


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

          Comment


          • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Lance is the exception. His baggage kept him out of top 5. Just help him unload it and we get there.
            This is down right hilarious

            Comment


            • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

              Sigh....

              The never ending tanking sucks/tanking is the only way debate.

              I'm obligated by law to state the following again.

              There is no one way to win an NBA title, if there where every team would be following that path.

              Tanking as strategy generally IMO is not successful however there have been cases where it has worked. Also depending on what you demand as success there have been some very very good teams built through the draft by teams that either just were very poorly run or were tanking on purpose. The OKC Thunder immediately come to mind as a team that has had long term success after being built around lottery level talent.

              Also don't let some of our older members fool you into believing the Pacers haven't also been built at times through high draft picks. Sure we all love that Danny was 17 Roy was 18 etc., ect. But those old 90's teams that people love so much were built around Reggie Miller selected at 11 Dale Davis 13 Derrick McKey 9 Mark Jackson 18 and here we go our starting center through that entire run Rik Smits # 2 overall pick in the draft.

              However for every OKC there is Minnesota, for every Cleveland there is Washington for 10+ seasons.

              What I would never recommend doing is dumping talent just to get draft picks, in other words what Philly is doing.

              However we had a very unique situation this season and this would have been the one year I would have liked to see them try and get some youthful talent via a high draft pick. We didn't, can't do anything about it and honestly the end run was kind of fun so we just have to roll with it.

              But in the end I just wish people wouldn't be so entrenched in ideology about it. I have heard well respected NBA analyst (people who get paid to think and talk about basketball) speak in favor and against both sides of the tanking debate.


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

              Comment


              • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                I was pretty impressed when 15000 fans stormed the court Tuesday and beat the **** out of the Pacers for winning and ruining their chances at a high draft pick. They did it so many times this season that I can't understand why Bird didn't realize that fans wanted to buy tickets to watch the team throw games and go 0-82 and then get the 4th pick. There were millionaires lined up to buy out the arena to see the team lose because such actions would put them on the championship trail of the 76ers and Wizards and Cavs.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                  What Peck said.

                  That plus one more thing that people forget- Unless the Pacers were basically willing to bench George Hill, they weren't going to get a high draft pick. Talk about strategy all you want, but there were a lot of good NBA players on this team and it's hard to "tank" if you have competent NBA players on your team. The only real way is to make a trade. In other words- dumping Roy/West for draft pics would have netted the Pacers a lot of losses.

                  I guess what I'm saying is, the Pacers would have had to put a lot of effort into blatantly tank in order to lose games. It just wasn't a realistic scenario.

                  But I'll say this, the Pacers absolutely needed a high pick. That woudl have been wonderful and I would have loved to see it. It just wasn't a real possibility however.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                    It's completely beyond me why people can't distinguish wanting a high pick because we've got a very good front office that would likely do some great things with it in comparison to breaking it down into some "herp derp high pick winz!" argument.

                    This was an extremely unique situation where a very good team had (and still has, BECAUSE OUR FRONT OFFICE IS GOOD) a great chance to add a partner for the rest of PG's career. No one wants a high pick for the sake of a high pick, generally teams are picking high because their decision makers are stupid. That's not us. We, at least I, wanted a high pick because it opens up a bevy of opportunities to improve the team.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                      Recent mock draft. Has us taking Bobby Portis from Arkansas. Stanley Johnson at 8 looks like a potential stud from some reports, but its difficult to believe pacers would have sucked worse than the Pistons.. without intentionally tanking.

                      9-15 selections all seem to be a relative skill level. I like the Portis kid and the need he could potentially fill for the pacers. Sorta resembles a younger version of Roy when you read his bio. Portis can play 4/5 which could help when West decides to hang em up. Maybe he can become a Dale Davis type player with a jumpshot for the Pacers.

                      Mock
                      http://www.cbssports.com/nba/draft/m...rt/sam-vecenie

                      Bio
                      http://www.nbadraft.net/players/bobby-portis

                      Comment


                      • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        It's completely beyond me why people can't distinguish wanting a high pick because we've got a very good front office that would likely do some great things with it in comparison to breaking it down into some "herp derp high pick winz!" argument.

                        This was an extremely unique situation where a very good team had (and still has, BECAUSE OUR FRONT OFFICE IS GOOD) a great chance to add a partner for the rest of PG's career. No one wants a high pick for the sake of a high pick, generally teams are picking high because their decision makers are stupid. That's not us. We, at least I, wanted a high pick because it opens up a bevy of opportunities to improve the team.
                        Not all high picks are the same. A high draft pick in 2010 is not the same as a high draft pick in 2008.

                        Did it occur to you that this front office that you claim to highly respect might have good solid reasons for not tanking this year? Other than being stupidly short-sighted, I mean. Maybe they looked at this year's draft and figured it looks more like 2011 than 2003 (it definitely does). Maybe they saw Philly leading the race to the bottom and figured that there was no margin in copying that strategy. (Ironically, both the Wolves and the Knicks managed to outtank the Sixers, by 1 and 2 wins respectively. Not something I would take pride in if the Pacers had managed it though.)

                        I would also dispute that we are in some unique situation. According to the tank theory, all it takes to climb back into contention is to lose a lot while holding on to your star player. And you know what, we could do that every year from now until PG's contract expires. That's hardly a unique situation. Say, a tank-friendly FO comes in to replace Bird next season, and the new GM sells off Hill, Hibbert, West for whatever value he can get, then shuts PG down to "rest". It's really very easy to tank, if the FO/owners can stomach it.

                        I would also dispute the notion that we're some great team who would be adding another piece with the high pick. As this year showed (which btw we wouldn't have known if we were tanking!), we have some real issues with the roster as it stands. It's not going to be solved as easily as adding 1 talented rookie to the mix. In some sense, the current iteration of the team is done, and whether the rebuilding starts this year or next or in 2016 doesn't matter very much.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          Not all high picks are the same. A high draft pick in 2010 is not the same as a high draft pick in 2008.

                          Did it occur to you that this front office that you claim to highly respect might have good solid reasons for not tanking this year? Other than being stupidly short-sighted, I mean. Maybe they looked at this year's draft and figured it looks more like 2011 than 2003 (it definitely does). Maybe they saw Philly leading the race to the bottom and figured that there was no margin in copying that strategy. (Ironically, both the Wolves and the Knicks managed to outtank the Sixers, by 1 and 2 wins respectively. Not something I would take pride in if the Pacers had managed it though.)

                          I would also dispute that we are in some unique situation. According to the tank theory, all it takes to climb back into contention is to lose a lot while holding on to your star player. And you know what, we could do that every year from now until PG's contract expires. That's hardly a unique situation. Say, a tank-friendly FO comes in to replace Bird next season, and the new GM sells off Hill, Hibbert, West for whatever value he can get, then shuts PG down to "rest". It's really very easy to tank, if the FO/owners can stomach it.

                          I would also dispute the notion that we're some great team who would be adding another piece with the high pick. As this year showed (which btw we wouldn't have known if we were tanking!), we have some real issues with the roster as it stands. It's not going to be solved as easily as adding 1 talented rookie to the mix. In some sense, the current iteration of the team is done, and whether the rebuilding starts this year or next or in 2016 doesn't matter very much.
                          I didn't want to tank from the get go. When we were 15 or so games under .500 in February I wanted to tank, still wish we had. We obviously didn't, is what it is. I wanted to get in the playoffs as much as anyone once it became obvious we were going to try and do it. No one likes watching their team lose.

                          I don't know why you seem to think I can't hold two different viewpoints of our front office. They're very good at their job and they're also very short sighted. Maybe they did look at this class and said nah let's get the 8 seed cuz these kids are nothing special, but I doubt it. They went for the playoffs because they don't like losing. That's fine, I respect that, seriously. But it really is short sighted.

                          The whole selling guys off and shutting PG down is just dumb hypothetical stuff and you know it, no one thinks that is/should/would be a legitimate strategy. You're going to massive extremes to try and sell a point. We were a very good team whose best player had a (mostly, hopefully only) season ending injury. That's a unique situation however much you want to try and church it up. Not a single person has advocated tanking beyond this past year. C'mon man, seriously.

                          I don't know what we found out this year that wasn't already pretty common knowledge honestly. West is getting old (and seems to legitimately have a drive issue), Roy's extremely offensively limited, Hill's a helluva player when you let him be. Where's the surprise? News at 11 or what? We found out Solo's a journeyman I guess. Yeah, that revelation was worth it.

                          Look, some of you guys seriously have to take the blinders off with Bird. I think he's good at his job, I also think he thinks far too in the moment. That was fine last year with Turner and Bynum, even with the disasters that they were, I get it. Not this year. This isn't the 2011 group of young punks that got some experience against the Bulls in the playoffs. This is a battle tested group that needs reinforcements going forward. And we can absolutely get that at the 11th/12th pick. But being higher improves the chances of that. That's my entire argument yet you guys keep acting like I want the Pacers to go 0-82.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            It's completely beyond me why people can't distinguish wanting a high pick because we've got a very good front office that would likely do some great things with it in comparison to breaking it down into some "herp derp high pick winz!" argument.

                            This was an extremely unique situation where a very good team had (and still has, BECAUSE OUR FRONT OFFICE IS GOOD) a great chance to add a partner for the rest of PG's career. No one wants a high pick for the sake of a high pick, generally teams are picking high because their decision makers are stupid. That's not us. We, at least I, wanted a high pick because it opens up a bevy of opportunities to improve the team.
                            This! And then also this

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            I didn't want to tank from the get go. When we were 15 or so games under .500 in February I wanted to tank, still wish we had. We obviously didn't, is what it is. I wanted to get in the playoffs as much as anyone once it became obvious we were going to try and do it. No one likes watching their team lose.

                            I don't know why you seem to think I can't hold two different viewpoints of our front office. They're very good at their job and they're also very short sighted. Maybe they did look at this class and said nah let's get the 8 seed cuz these kids are nothing special, but I doubt it. They went for the playoffs because they don't like losing. That's fine, I respect that, seriously. But it really is short sighted.

                            The whole selling guys off and shutting PG down is just dumb hypothetical stuff and you know it, no one thinks that is/should/would be a legitimate strategy. You're going to massive extremes to try and sell a point. We were a very good team whose best player had a (mostly, hopefully only) season ending injury. That's a unique situation however much you want to try and church it up. Not a single person has advocated tanking beyond this past year. C'mon man, seriously.

                            I don't know what we found out this year that wasn't already pretty common knowledge honestly. West is getting old (and seems to legitimately have a drive issue), Roy's extremely offensively limited, Hill's a helluva player when you let him be. Where's the surprise? News at 11 or what? We found out Solo's a journeyman I guess. Yeah, that revelation was worth it.

                            Look, some of you guys seriously have to take the blinders off with Bird. I think he's good at his job, I also think he thinks far too in the moment. That was fine last year with Turner and Bynum, even with the disasters that they were, I get it. Not this year. This isn't the 2011 group of young punks that got some experience against the Bulls in the playoffs. This is a battle tested group that needs reinforcements going forward. And we can absolutely get that at the 11th/12th pick. But being higher improves the chances of that. That's my entire argument yet you guys keep acting like I want the Pacers to go 0-82.
                            Add to this also the argument that having one losing season means all our players immediately forget how to win, start doing all the wrong thing and a losing culture has been born. It completely negates the large amount of games missed due to injuries, particularly those to keyplayers and then even more so the games missed due to our superstarplayer beying badly injured.

                            This was a one year opportunity that we IMHO completely wasted. There were positive things too, but I for all intents and purposes, will refuse to see this as anything but a lost season in the end. Nobody is talking about tanking 2 or 3 years in a row. Nobody is talking about going 1-81.

                            Also it's almost like some people think that a #6 holds the same value as a #12 pick, which is ridiculous IMHO. Yes, the player at #12 might become the better player. However chances are very much in favour of the team holding the #6 pick to get the better player. And that's not even taking into account possible trading away your #6 or #12 pick for whatever it is that entices the team. I think a #6 pick holds a lot more worth then a #12 pick in deals, even in years where the talent isn't as uber as say in 2003.
                            Last edited by Mourning; 04-17-2015, 07:17 AM.
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                              It's absolutely ok to hold conflicting views of the FO! I do that too - I generally think they do a good job while thinking they've made mistakes in soecific instances (look at my other posts, hahaha). But in this case I happen to agree with the team's actions, and explain my reasoning for it. I don't know for sure if the FO had the same reasoning, but I'm going to assume they are smart and reasoned similarly

                              IMO Larry Bird doesn't like losing doesn't mean he won't ever tank if the rewards are worth it, just as Larry Bird liking seniors doesn't mean he won't draft freshmen (PG, Lance, Shawne) now and then. Another example: Ainge doesn't tank like to tank either, and he went through several mediocre years with picks in the teens thanks to Paul Pierce and a roster of veterans. But when the Oden/Durant draft came around, veterans were sold off and Pierce conveniently missed most of the year. Of course the tank effort was a massive fail (they had the 2nd or 3rd worst record and ended up with the 5th pick), but it still worked out for them.

                              As for what we learned this year... prior to the season, there were many people thinking we'll just have a down year and go right back to contention with a healthy PG next year. Now, it doesn't sound like many people still feel that way. So yes, it seems like we've learned something. And if what we've learned means that we'll use our pick to draft a project player for the future instead of trading it for a Scola-type vet, then I think it's pretty useful knowledge.

                              As for blinders when it comes to Bird, the irony is, I think you may have a better opinion of Bird than I do! I certainly don't think Bird can perform miracles with a slightly higher draft choice. For example in 2009, if we were drafting #10 instead of #13, I'm pretty sure we'd still have taken Hansbrough.

                              You must have seen charts like this before:
                              http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
                              http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-really-worth/

                              Anyway, history and analytics agree - the real talent is concentrated at the top of the draft, and levels off quite quickly afterwards. So that scenario I outlined? I don't know how realistic it is, but that's absolutely what's needed to get into the tanking game these days. Half hearted tanking like you seem to suggest (try to win and if it fails tank the rest of the way) only gets you mediocre results.

                              As always, my question is - sure the 6th pick is better than the 11th, but how much better? If it is only 20% better... is it still worth arguing about?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                                Since I know no one is going to bother clicking on a link to an analytics piece (LOL), I'll just put the chart here



                                So, tell me again how valuable a few draft positions are when you're drafting around 10.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X