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

Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

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

  • #16
    Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post
    The entire premise of this article is stupid. Sure, the Pacers' highest heights weren't a byproduct of bottoming out, but there's one problem with that... the Pacers highest heights haven't included an NBA championship!
    The only reason the Pacers don't have an NBA Championship is because of The Brawl in 2004.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

      Originally posted by Strummer View Post
      Good (long) read. I always enjoy Mark's articles. It's great having a knowledgeable writer that's been around the team so long. He's like an old friend. Unfortunately it seems like some of the younger generation value snark over substance. Sign of the times I guess.

      For those of you expecting Thad to be moved, I'll point out this bit. It's not a direct quote from Walsh so I don't know if he named Thad specifically. But it could indicate they intend to keep Thad around.
      ...
      The only way for those young players to learn to win, Walsh added, is to have veteran players – such as a Thaddeus Young – who can set an example and pass on their knowledge. A team overloaded with youth runs the risk of becoming unhinged.
      ...
      Boy, isn't this the truth. Young guys are fun to watch, but they are usually the embodiment of 'Activity without Accomplishment'. 3 1/2 quarters of good play and a 1/2 quarter of and end up with a L for their efforts.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        LOL, without even looking I knew just by the way that was titled that this was an article by the bunny. Even though I agree with the premise, just him writing this now makes me rethink my stance on the whole thing.
        And so you should.

        I've never been a fan of teams tanking just to get into the draft lottery and acquire "quality draft picks" although I do understand the idea behind it. It's about developing a new crop of young players who can grow together. The hopes, of course, is that this new "core" of players will develop unit cohesiveness over time and become a symbiotic force. With the exception of the Spurs, I know of no other team* that's been able to rebuilt their franchise from the bottom up with young draft picks who essentially "grew up" on the hardwood together and went on to win a championship. If anything, the complete opposite has been true: NBA franchises have "purchased" veteran All-Stars and they've worked their way to a championship:

        Lakers
        Celtics
        Heat
        Cavs
        Warriors
        Mavericks

        *The Orlando Magic came close in drafting Shaq and Penny Hardaway, but they blew their one chance to win a championship via a complete team rebuild through the draft lottery.

        I was like everyone else when the PG for Victor Oladipo trade was announced. I couldn't believe the Pacers would let PG go for a virtual no-name. But then I started researching Oladipo and I saw videos from his days with the Orlando Magic, I couldn't believe what I was seeing of this kid. Seeing Victor "Home Dipo" play (yeah, that's what I'm calling him) reminded me of a young Danny Granger when he was the lone scoring option the Pacers had. Home Dipo was the one good player on a team with little offensive firepower, but when you watch how he took over the team and how commanding he was at such a young age, you start to re-access who the Pacers received back in this trade. Put simply: Victor Oladipo is no slouch!

        But it's not just Home Dipo that has me feeling good about this team headed into next season. It's the fact that Pritchard didn't just draft rookies. He also traded for or signed players who: a) have playoff experience (Oladip, Collison, Bogdanovic, Joseph), b) are veteran players (re: David Collison - WELCOME BACK, SEXY CHOCOLATE!) and, c) want to be here. A and C should stick out to everyone who dread the idea of the Pacers starting from scratch or want to see a more competitive team over last year.

        The OP article is a reminder to Pacers fans of old that this team has gone through tougher times and have come out of it for the better. It should serve as historical footnote to younger fans to never count this team out.
        Last edited by NuffSaid; 08-06-2017, 01:27 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

          Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post
          The entire premise of this article is stupid. Sure, the Pacers' highest heights weren't a byproduct of bottoming out, but there's one problem with that... the Pacers highest heights haven't included an NBA championship!
          Clearly, this is what Pacers fans the world over have been praying for. They've gotten close on one occasion (1999-2000) with a few squads that were promising but never quite got there. It's frustration, but all you can do is hope that you find that right group of players who want to be here, who get along very well with each other on and off the court, who don't cause problems and will compete each and every night for the full 48+ minutes. That 1999-2000 team was like that. The team just prior to the Brawl was like that. And until Roy Hibbert left, that Pacers team was like that (not saying Roy was "the man"...just saying once he left that core group kinda followed suit). It's why I have such promise about this 2017-2018 squad because most, if not all, of the players want to be here. That's 25% of the problem solved right there.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
            Clearly, this is what Pacers fans the world over have been praying for. They've gotten close on one occasion (1999-2000) with a few squads that were promising but never quite got there. It's frustration, but all you can do is hope that you find that right group of players who want to be here, who get along very well with each other on and off the court, who don't cause problems and will compete each and every night for the full 48+ minutes. That 1999-2000 team was like that. The team just prior to the Brawl was like that. And until Roy Hibbert left, that Pacers team was like that (not saying Roy was "the man"...just saying once he left that core group kinda followed suit). It's why I have such promise about this 2017-2018 squad because most, if not all, of the players want to be here. That's 25% of the problem solved right there.
            Another factor you have to add is that the Pacers best teams had veteran all-star in their prime. You just can't win in the NBA with young guys. Experience is something you can't teach. You certainly don't get it by bottoming out at least not for 5-6 years or more.

            We need to hope that some all-nba level player wants to come play alongside Miles Turner in a couple of years.

            Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

              0 rings

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                The only reason the Pacers don't have an NBA Championship is because of The Brawl in 2004.
                Sure, uh, maybe.
                "man, PG has been really good."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                  Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                  0 rings
                  Teams that tanked in the last 20 years and got rings due to it? Cleveland with 1 if we think that the players they got from that unprecedented run of #1 picks lured LeBron back. GSW because they tanked forever but even then their top guy was not a top 3 pick. San Antonio if you count the year of Robinson's injury.

                  Line up next to them the Clippers, Bulls, 76ers, and so many more whose tanking did not produce a championship or even as many trips to the conference finals as the Pacers had in the same period.

                  Tanking gets you draft position. Draft position gives you a chance at a good player, but if that doesn't pan out there's no plan B - there's just more tanking.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                    Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post
                    The entire premise of this article is stupid. Sure, the Pacers' highest heights weren't a byproduct of bottoming out, but there's one problem with that... the Pacers highest heights haven't included an NBA championship!
                    No matter what anyone thinks of any form of tanking, this short comment pretty much killed the Bunny's entire piece and left it dead in its tracks.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      No matter what anyone thinks of any form of tanking, this short comment pretty much killed the Bunny's entire piece and left it dead in its tracks.
                      I'm going to respectfully disagree. The point that is being made is that very rarely does tanking result in a championship...for anyone.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                        Originally posted by sav View Post
                        I'm going to respectfully disagree. The point that is being made is that very rarely does tanking result in a championship...for anyone.
                        True or not, the Bunny used a flawed premise to show it. We could agree with him that tanking is a bad idea and doesn't work for the Pacers getting a championship, yet he didn't really show that so he added nothing to the conversation except words.
                        What he essentially did was a logistical fallacy.
                        All Indiana Pacers have flown on planes, therefore flying on planes keeps the Indiana Pacers from winning championships. That would be the same flawed argument.


                        EDIT: Although it's really as pointless to debate something the Bunny has written because it implies he has some credibility beyond the ability to string words and sentences into paragraphs. He's simply an apologist. Always has been and always will. It's perfect for him to officially be on the Pacers' payroll to at least justify it.
                        Last edited by Bball; 08-24-2017, 06:09 PM.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                          Well this happens to be my #1 cause celebre which I rant about every few months starting about 20 years ago. Of all the sports franchises that should have a fanbase that realizes that "stuck at mediocre" is utter BS and that tanking is not required to build a championship caliber team, the Pacers are the top of the heap. 61 wins, the most wins in the NBA is nothing to sneeze at. Nearly all NBA title winners are pulled from the top 2 seeds in either conference, especially the win total champ. That year required the Pistons to get Sheed gifted to them for free via a trade followed by buyout deal. The team with the best win % versus West opponents that season? The Pacers. They were the favorites to win the title.

                          THe 1998 team did something no other team ever did - took Jordan to 7 games after he began his championship runs. No other team did that. And they had the lead on the road late in the 4th quarter.

                          The 2000 Pacers outscored the Lakers in the Finals. Sure the game 5 blowout was the reason, but another reason was the fact that game 4 was so tight and required Kobe's first moment of heroism when he saved them from losing once Shaq fouled out.


                          By my count that's 3 teams that weren't just happy to be there, but were actually legit title contenders if not favorites.

                          And to be fair, you had the Knicks down 3-2 coming back to Indy for a chance to face the Rockets in the Finals. Then you had the Magic in game 7 with a chance to again face the Rockets, and that time they were the Dream Rockets that had to run a set of upsets to get back to the Finals. The Pacers were more than capable of beating that Rockets team, and in fact they had kicked the hell out of them in that first year when they began a late season surge in their run to the playoffs after hovering near .500. I just posted about this a few months ago.


                          Fans do this crap all the time, they hate that feeling of losing and love to dismiss their own team as method of emotional protection. But from a betting standpoint, from a neutral "do they have a chance" standpoint, all 5 of those squads were just a break away from a title. These were not flukes, especially when it kept happening.


                          And all of them had stared down just missing the playoffs, no cap space, no major trades to fix thing, no high draft pick. In each case the only real change was a coaching change.

                          You trade your all-star (Detlef) for a guy who never makes the ASG. This gets you from 8th to minutes away from the Finals?

                          You make no real moves other than to get a coach who will play Jalen Rose and you push Jordan harder than any team ever did.

                          You again trade an all-star (B Miller) for a guy not even close to ASG level on a technicality trade (Pollard) and you win 13 more games and go from 3 straight years of 1st round losses and bad draft position to the #1 team in the league?



                          The stats and facts don't lie. Stockton, Malone, Payton, Kemp, Barkley's Suns - these are all title caliber teams that didn't win the title. Championships in most sports and in most seasons feature 4-5 teams that can really win it all. You might as well say the undefeated Patriots were garbage because the Giants upset them. It's silly. In sports if you want to win a title you have to beat at least 1-2 other teams that are also legitimately capable of winning the title. Otherwise what have you actually won?



                          At this point people have decided a false narrative because they see a high draft pick on a winning team and they just excuse away all the contradictions. The fact is that if you aren't named Lebron, Curry, Duncan, Kobe or Shaq you probably didn't make your team a title winning team. And you'll notice that in several of those cases the team didn't use a high draft pick to get that player on their roster. Most teams with top 5 picks DO NOT DRAFT a one-a-generation caliber player, and only once-a-generation type of players win titles nearly by themselves.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                            We've had so many excruciating close calls.

                            In 94, we had a Game 6 in Indy that would have sent us to the NBA Finals.

                            In 95, we couldn't win a damn road game in Orlando, and inexplicably were blown out in Game 7.

                            In 98, we just had a "holy crap, we're really close to eliminating Michael Jordan" deer in the headlights Game 7 fourth quarter.

                            99 is always the most sickening. Just surreal. I can live with losing to Jordan or Shaq, but not a squirrelly 8 seed.

                            2000 we ran up against one of the most dominant players ever at his apex. If only that Reggie 3 goes in at the end of OT. I still don't think we would have won the series, but we would have had a Game 5 in Indy with a chance to go up 3-2.

                            04 - we were unquestionably a better team than Detroit prior to the gift of Sheed (JO used to run over them before Sheed, who knew how to defend him). Then you have the Prince block.

                            13 - Vogel commits the biggest brain fart in the history of NBA coaching by taking a prime beast Hibbert out in the most important play of season. We also had probably the worst bench of any team in Conference Finals history. That was an NBA Finals caliber starting unit.

                            14 - never mind, I've already mentioned enough anguish.

                            While we've had some brutal close calls, we've been an incredibly successful franchise without having one of those top 5 talents.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                              Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                              Good (long) read. I always enjoy Mark's articles. It's great having a knowledgeable writer that's been around the team so long. He's like an old friend. Unfortunately it seems like some of the younger generation value snark over substance. Sign of the times I guess.

                              For those of you expecting Thad to be moved, I'll point out this bit. It's not a direct quote from Walsh so I don't know if he named Thad specifically. But it could indicate they intend to keep Thad around.
                              I will have no problem keeping him this season, but if the right trade comes along where we can get some type of an asset....even if it's a 2nd round pick or some younger middle-to-lower tier prospect on a rookie contract while not adding too much to the 2018 Salary Cap.....then I have no problem trading him. My hope is that if we do keep him for this season, he will opt out with his Player Option looking for a long term contract elsewhere.

                              I have always loved him as a Player and his veteran experience will help...even for this season. But given that I do not think that he's not likely to be considered part of the long-term core and I think that he still has some trade value....if the Pacers have the option to acquire some assets in exchange for him....then I am fine with moving him.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

                                BTW, the Pacers HAVE HAD A TOP 5 PICK in the middle of all of this "failure to win it all". That top 5 pick helped the Pacers less than almost anything else they did in the last 30 years. That's part of the issue with tanking for picks, what if you use them to draft Bender?

                                I think being smarter than other GMs regarding known talent and financial opportunities is a far more controlled environment to work in which is why teams like the Spurs stay on top. Yes they lucked into Robinson/Elliot and then again with Duncan, but they also turned a late 1st into Hill which turned into Leonard (who still wasn't at top 10 pick). And they built around Duncan with other low picks (Parker, Manu).

                                Kobe, not a top 10 pick. Lebron, FA with Miami, Shaq, FA with Miami and LA. And btw, the Lakers NEVER TANKED. The pre-Kobe Lakers are actually another example of a team "stuck at .500" or actually a bit better. You are a lot better off dealing with known quantities, especially if you can evaluate those situations better than the competition.

                                Plenty of smart scouts failed to recognize draft busts, and throw in injuries to show just how much of a guessing game the draft is. There is at least 1-2 top 10 pick MISSES every single year. Every year by people paid a lot of money not to F that up, with tons of support staff and data and experience. It's a lot easier to make a smart trade or a smart contract deal (not a steal, just good for both parties).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X