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

Top of the Draft Analysis

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

  • Top of the Draft Analysis

    Alright, here's a quick breakdown of the top-5 picks since 1984, excluding 2006. I rated each player a 1-5 and then tallied up the totals. This is all very subjective obviously. Also, I'm counting players scores a their peak, prior to any injuries or whatever, so therefor Antonio McDyess would be a 4 whereas Grant Hill would be a 5. Also, for 2005 I'm basing off of most likely scenario, ie: Dwight a 5, Emeka and Ben each a 4 etc.

    5 = Superstar
    4 = All-Star
    3 = Starter
    2 = Backup
    1 = Dud

    There's 110 players....

    2005
    1. Andrew Bogut 3
    2. Marvin Williams 3
    3. Deron Williams 4
    4. Chris Paul 5
    5. Raymond Felton 3

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

    2003
    1 LeBron James 5
    2 Darko Milicic 3
    3 Carmelo Anthony 5
    4 Chris Bosh 5
    5 Dwyane Wade 5

    2002
    1. Yao Ming 5
    2. Jay Williams 1
    3. Mike Dunleavy, Jr. 2
    4. Drew Gooden 2
    5. Nikoloz Tskitishvili 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1985
    1. Patrick Ewing 5
    2. Wayman Tisdale 3
    3. Benoit Benjamin 3
    4. Xavier McDaniel 4
    5. Jon Koncak 3

    1984
    1. Hakeem Olajuwon 5
    2. Sam Bowie 3
    3. Michael Jordan 5
    4. Sam Perkins 3
    5. Charles Barkley 5


    So our totals are....

    25 Superstars
    28 All-Stars
    33 Starters
    18 Backups
    6 Duds (of which two careers ended due to injury in Jonathan Bender, Jay Williams; 2 ended due to drugs in Len Bias (I guess he could go along with injury as well) and Chris Washburn; and 2 due to completely sucking in Nikoloz Tskitishvili and Marcus Fizer)

    And those percentages would be....

    22.7% chance of landing a Superstar
    25.5% chance of landing an All-Star
    30% chance of landing a Starter
    16.4% chance of landing a Backup
    5.5% chance of wasting the pick on a Dud

    So in total a 48.2% chance of landing an All-Star/Superstar. Not bad. That's over double the chances of landing either a career backup or dud.



    And here we look at each pick individually.....

    #5
    Superstar - 5/22 (22.7%)
    All-Star - 4/22 (18.2%)
    Starter - 8/22 (36.4%)
    Backup - 3/22 (13.6%)
    Dud - 2/22 (9.1%)

    #4
    Superstar - 3/22 (13.6%)
    All-Star - 7/22 (31.9%)
    Starter - 6/22 (27.2%)
    Backup - 5/22 (22.7%)
    Dud - 1/22 (4.5%)

    #3
    Superstar - 4/22 (18.2%)
    All-Star - 7/22 (31.9%)
    Starter - 5/22 (22.7%)
    Backup - 5/22 (22.7%)
    Dud - 1/22 (4.5%)

    #2
    Superstar - 3/22 (13.6%)
    All-Star - 5/22 (22.7%)
    Starter - 9/22 (40.9%)
    Backup - 3/22 (13.6%)
    Dud - 2/22 (9.1%)

    #1
    Superstar - 10/22 (45.5%)
    All-Star - 5/22 (22.7%)
    Starter - 5/22 (22.7%)
    Backup - 2/22 (9.1%)
    Dud - 0/22 (0%)


    The odds of landing an All-Star or Superstar with each pick...

    #5. 40.9%
    #4. 45.5%
    #3. 50%
    #2. 36.3%
    #1. 68.1%

    Bottomline: there are very few true stinkers in the top 5, and quite a few average players, but it's absolutely loaded with future All-Stars and Superstars. There's no easier way in the league to acquire such a player then by landing a top-5 pick, and aside from unlucky #2, the higher that top-5 pick lands, the greater chance you have of acquiring a said All-Star/Superstar. It's also worth noting that the best player on every championship team of the past 20 years has been a top-5 NBA draft pick.

  • #2
    Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

    Nice post! I don't have much to add at the moment, but I appreciate the post and all the work.

    I sort of wish we could pull a Spurs next year - JO miss the season, get the top pick, draft the Next Big Thing (preferably a PG - maybe that rose guy?), and team him with JO, Dun, Quis and the more experienced Danny, Ike, and Shawne...
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

      Why not pull a Spurs this year?

      I wouldn't mind obtaining Oden and trading JO for the pick that lands Conley.

      Oh and this is a true quality post Y2J, it makes me curious what chances there are for a superstar etc. beyond the top 5.
      Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

        I appreciate the effort you put in to going through each draft. However, I have to object to your very liberal use of the word superstar - Webber, Gary Payton, Mutombo, Hardaway, Chris Paul (Deron Williams is better by the way), Yao, Bosh, Mourning - none of those players are even close to being a Superstar and I only picked the most obvious ones.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

          I'd really love to see this analysis over the top TEN picks.

          I tend to agree that the "grades" were given liberally, but the data is sufficiently large so this bias has a minor affect on the final outcome.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I appreciate the effort you put in to going through each draft. However, I have to object to your very liberal use of the word superstar - Webber, Gary Payton, Mutombo, Hardaway, Chris Paul (Deron Williams is better by the way), Yao, Bosh, Mourning - none of those players are even close to being a Superstar and I only picked the most obvious ones.
            Payton, Mourning and Hardaway aren't now but they certainly were for large chunks of their careers - IMO Payton was the best PG in the league for the 90's.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

              why are mike dunleavy and drew gooden listed as 2s when they're starters while darko is listed as a 3 (who, only began starting the second half of this season)?
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I appreciate the effort you put in to going through each draft. However, I have to object to your very liberal use of the word superstar - Webber, Gary Payton, Mutombo, Hardaway, Chris Paul (Deron Williams is better by the way), Yao, Bosh, Mourning - none of those players are even close to being a Superstar and I only picked the most obvious ones.
                I think those are fair. Paul will be very very good and at the very least thought of as a superstar by lots of people. Mutumbo I might give you, he'd probably be a 4. A high 4 though... lol. Webber at his best was a superstar w/ the Kings. I don't know much about Hardaway. Yao is as close to superstar as it gets at 'true C' nowadays. Bosh will be something very close to a superstar.

                Overall I think his grading was solid - and really changing a few of the 5's to 4's wouldn't affect his overall point.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                  I guess my definition of a superstar is very strict and udually involves only 5 or 6 current players in the NBA. I distingush between a star and a super star. Superstar is somone who would be an alltime great. A star would be someone who would be a perenial allstar and be a difference maker for his team

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I appreciate the effort you put in to going through each draft. However, I have to object to your very liberal use of the word superstar - Webber, Gary Payton, Mutombo, Hardaway, Chris Paul (Deron Williams is better by the way), Yao, Bosh, Mourning - none of those players are even close to being a Superstar and I only picked the most obvious ones.

                    I haven't seen enough of Deron in the NBA to know what he brings to the table other than what the stats tell me, and I'm well aware that doesn't tell the whole story. However, the stats between Paul, and Deron only have extremely minor differences. The only visible differences is that Paul gets to the line more, and nearly doubles Derons steal total per game.

                    What is it to you that makes Deron better?

                    -- Steve --

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I guess my definition of a superstar is very strict and udually involves only 5 or 6 current players in the NBA. I distingush between a star and a super star. Superstar is somone who would be an alltime great. A star would be someone who would be a perenial allstar and be a difference maker for his team
                      Yep. A superstar is someone who WINS. They have a degree of playoff success, they don't have to win rings necessarily , but they have to have shown that they can will their team to success in the playoffs.

                      Kevin Garnett might seem to break this rule... does he?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                        Y2J:

                        That was a very good read! Thanks for all the effort and time you spent making it for us.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                          Yeah thanks Y2J (r u a Jericho fan or is that from something else?) That was interesting to read. Though I'm curious as to what picks outside the lottery have had a good amount of success. Something I might look into!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I appreciate the effort you put in to going through each draft. However, I have to object to your very liberal use of the word superstar - Webber, Gary Payton, Mutombo, Hardaway, Chris Paul (Deron Williams is better by the way), Yao, Bosh, Mourning - none of those players are even close to being a Superstar and I only picked the most obvious ones.
                            Prior to his kidney ailment, Alonzo Mourning was a 20/10 player on a top-4 team (Heat) and what makes him a superstar imo, outside of Mutombo and Hakeem, is that he was the best defensive big man of the past 25 years.

                            Gary Payton, as stated, was probably the best point guard of the 90's. He was not only a 20 per game scorer and a guy capable of double-figures assists, he's also one of the most decorated defenders in NBA history. You think Kirk Hinrich is good? Multiply his talent by about 5 and you've got Gary Payton in his prime.

                            Webber, while currently broken down and a shell of his former self, in his prime was one of the most versatile big men of all-time. Back in the late 90's and early 2000's, Webber was consistently putting up 25/10/5 (Larry Bird-like numbers) on one of the leagues top teams, the Kings.


                            Mutombo, while never a great scorer, was the preeminent big man defensive force of the past 25 years. I'd only Hakeem his equal, and even then I'm leaning towards Dikembe. Throw in the fact that he was also one of the dominant rebounders, and while not a great scorer, could get you mid-teens points on a very efficient FG%, and he's probably one of the most underrated impact players in NBA history.

                            Yao, Paul, and Bosh may or may not be current superstars (I say Yao is), but they look to be on their way.


                            And even if these players aren't superstars to you, they're still phenomenal talent, far better than anything the Pacers currently have. How do we get this level of player if not through the draft? You think Larry Bird, a guy who just got swindled by a bum like Chris Mullin, is capable of finding the next diamond in the rough and trading one of our pieces of junk for it? I sure as hell don't.

                            And while very few players bring their teams NBA championships, history tells us the players that do come from the top-5 of the NBA draft. So while the odds of the Pacers landing the next Shaq or Duncan aren't great even if they do stink it up in the coming few years, its better than the 0% chance we have of landing that type of player outside of the draft. Besides, even if we don't land the next dominant championship player, we're still likely get exciting talented players to make the Pacers fun to watch again and eventually makes us one of the top contenders.

                            I just find the anti-draft though process a little bit ridiculous, considering outside of a very few, every single great player in NBA history has came in through the draft.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Top of the Draft Analysis

                              Funny enough, I was just looking at last months issue of Dime magazine, and one of the main stories is on the guards of the class of 2007. The tagline is "The Class of '07: The Best Guards Ever?". The reason I mention this is, common sense tells us most if not all of these guys will do what almost all top-10 NBA prospects do and enter the draft a.s.a.p. In other words, the best high school class of guards ever may become the best NBA draft of guards ever next year. Considering our backcourt is pretty much pathetic, now sure would be a good time to start the rebuilding process, and land one of these guys in next years draft.

                              O.J. Mayo
                              Derrick Rose
                              Eric Gordon
                              Corey Fischer

                              And not looking at guards, there's also a kid named Michael Beasley getting a ton of hype as a top-3 pick next year. Personally, I'd rather have Mayo, Rose, or Gordon, but if J.O. is shipped out, especially if we land a good young point guard in the process, finding his replacement could be our top priority.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X