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

ESPN's Rookie Awards

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    ESPN's Rookie Awards

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...Rookies-090408

    Welcome to the first-ever Rookie 50 Awards. We're naming our all-rookie teams (we're going three teams deep since this class is so talented) and handing out some "best in class" awards. Next week, we'll announce our Rookie of the Year pick.

    On to the awards ...


    Individual Awards


    Rookie 50
    Check out David Thorpe's complete rookie rankings. Who's No. 1? Rookie 50

    • Hollinger's rookie stats

    Offensive Rookie of the Year: Derrick Rose
    Proved to be a dynamic scorer throughout the season (16.6 points per game), mixing in incredible drives to the hoop and a much-better-than-expected midrange game. He's almost impossible to stay in front of.

    Defensive Rookie of the Year: Brook Lopez
    Top 10 in the NBA in blocks (1.8) and effective in positioning, as well. Makes the offense think about his presence and isn't foul-prone.

    Sixth Man of the Year: D.J. Augustin
    Averaged 10 ppg off the bench on 41.7 percent shooting from 3, and had 29 points in a win over the Bulls and 20 points in a huge victory against Boston. Led all rookies in true shooting percentage at 59.6 percent.

    Best Rebounder: Kevin Love
    By far the best rebounder in this class (9.0) and is amongst the world's elite in this category.

    Best 3-Point Shooter: Anthony Morrow
    He's simply the best 3-point shooter in the NBA right now (80-of-164).

    Most Improved (from November to April): Eric Gordon
    It's not so much that Gordon got better, he just got more time. And he took advantage, raising his points per game (15.9) and his PER (14.90) significantly in 2009.

    Biggest Surprise of the Class: Brook Lopez
    Not even the Nets expected Lopez to be this good this quickly. He is a threat on both sides of the ball, able to play slow but excellent in early-offense schemes, and a willing screener and rebounder.

    Biggest Surprise Overall: The entire 2008 draft class
    Loaded with potential All-Stars, this class proved to be incredibly deep, too.

    Biggest Upside/Bust Potential: Anthony Randolph
    Shows great potential as a shot-blocker, rebounder and transition finisher. Also plays with great energy. But inside reports of laziness and a lack or maturity still haunt him, to a degree.

    Toughest Dude: Russell Westbrook
    Lots of great candidates here, but Westbrook was a beast all season inside the paint and challenged everyone at the rim (and sometimes over it!).



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    All-Offensive Team

    Derrick Rose: See Offensive Rookie of the Year.

    Eric Gordon: Incredibly explosive off the dribble and a terrific shooter, too. Excellent in a half-court or running game.

    D.J. Augustin: Great combination of outside shooting and dribble-penetration skills. Chasing him off the 3-point line works great for his midrange game.

    O.J. Mayo: Very confident shooter with a great talent for getting jump shots off while under control. Strong transition finisher, as well.

    Michael Beasley: Scores in a variety of ways and has an excellent face-up game. He's the difficult matchup we expected him to be.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    All-Defensive Team

    Mario Chalmers: First among rookies in steals (1.9) and helped Miami improve greatly on defense.

    Courtney Lee: The best perimeter defender on the league's best defensive team.

    O.J. Mayo: Competes hard on this end and has the best defensive rebound rate (12.2) of any rookie guard.

    Luc Richard Mbah a Moute: Uses length and strength to bother and sometimes smother scorers.

    Brook Lopez: See Defensive Rookie of the Year.

    Honorable mention: Russell Westbrook
    Not at all a shut-down guy (yet) but great at creating chaos. Second to Chalmers in steals, with 1.4 per game.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    All-Rookie First Team

    Derrick Rose, Bulls: Among rookies, he is second in scoring and minutes per game and first in assists (6.2). He was handed a ton of responsibility immediately and handled it all with grace and professionalism. And though he went No. 1 overall, he probably exceeded the expectations of most people.

    Russell Westbrook, Thunder: Only rookie to rank in the top 10 among rookies in scoring (15.5), rebounding (4.8) and assists (5.1). He is also second in steals and first in free throws made and attempted. He willed his team to some terrific wins and showed incredible promise.

    O.J. Mayo, Grizzlies: First among rookies in scoring (18.4) and minutes (38.0), and is already considered one of the league's top jump-shooters. He also competes hard on defense and appears to be very professional.

    Kevin Love, Timberwolves: Already one of the league's top rebounders, he is competing with Speights for the rookie PER crown. He is also a smart interior defender and should be a strong starter for years to come.

    Brook Lopez, Nets: He's been nothing short of a revelation. One of the top free-throw shooting centers in basketball, he is an excellent scorer, rebounder and shot-blocker. He has been probably the most productive rookie of the class, and he can become a cornerstone center, which is one of the most valuable positions.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    All-Rookie Second Team

    D.J. Augustin, Bobcats: Second among rookies (top 10 in the NBA) in 3-point shooting (44 percent), fourth in assists (3.5). He has the potential to be a dynamic point guard in this league.

    Eric Gordon, Clippers: He dominated a number of games this season and is third among rookies in scoring. He is also better than expected as a defender and an excellent outside shooter (38 percent from 3).

    Rudy Fernandez, Trail Blazers: Plays a key role for a solid playoff team. He made a number of game-saving and game-winning plays, and combined excellent outside shooting with smart play overall.

    Michael Beasley, Heat: He wasn't outstanding in any area, but he was better-than-solid in most categories (top 10 among rookies in scoring and rebounding). He also proved he can score efficiently and looks to be a big threat in the playoffs.

    Marc Gasol, Grizzlies: Produced excellent numbers for a first-year center as a scorer/rebounder and led all rookie big men in assist rate (12.5). He knows how to play positional defense in the paint, too.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    All-Rookie Third Team

    Mario Chalmers, Heat: Leads all rookies in starts -- for a playoff team, no less -- and is currently playing his best ball of the season. He is also third among rookies in assists.

    Courtney Lee, Magic: A starting guard for a top-four team in the league, he plays his role to near perfection. He is third among rookies in 3-point shooting (78-for-187).

    Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Bucks: Best wing defender in the class. He makes few mistakes and plays hard all the time.

    Jason Thompson, Kings: Has averaged 12 points and 8 rebounds in 48 starts (77 games overall so far), showing star quality in a dozen games. A likely breakout candidate next season.

    Marreese Speights, 76ers: Led all rookies in PER (18.60) for most of the season by being a very efficient scorer and greedy offensive rebounder. He just needs more playing time.

    I'm suprised that Rush didn't make the all defensive team and also that neither him nor Hibbert made the second or third rookie team.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

    Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
    I'm suprised that Rush didn't make the all defensive team and also that neither him nor Hibbert made the second or third rookie team.
    I would have been very, very suprised to see them even mentioned in this article. I think it would have had to have been written by someone on this board to include them.

    They've come on as of late, but their seasons have not been that impressive.
    Last edited by maragin; 04-09-2009, 07:38 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

      Rush and Hibbert did next to nothing the first half of the season. Had they started the season playing the same as they do now, I bet they would have been mentioned somewhere. Since they both were able to succesfully play there way out of the rotation during the first half of the season, this comes as no surprise.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

        I dunno...I think Rush's defense has been on par with LRMM or Courtney Lee.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

          Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
          I dunno...I think Rush's defense has been on par with LRMM or Courtney Lee.
          Yup. But like the guy said, Lee's the best defender on one of the best defensive teams in the league. Gotta be better (not just on par) to overcome that kind of advantage.
          This space for rent.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

            besides their slow start I just think it reflects the overall lack of attention and knowledge media have had for the Pacers in recent times...

            not surprised at all by this

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

              I don't know why anyone would have expected them to be mentioned with what they only accomplished towards the end of the season.

              All 3 of my "wants" for the Pacers in last years draft were mentioned... Speights#16 pick, Lee#22 pick, and Chalmers #34. Lee and Chalmers are starters for their teams as well.

              The one player I missed, as in better than I really had ever envisioned, was K Love. I really like him. I'll have to give Seth credit on his pick of Love. He was a stauch supporter all along for him.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                I thought this was pretty interesting. Let me know if it's been posted already. I figured it kind of dovetails into the gist of this thread. I was actually doing some research on what will be second year players next year, for fantasy basketball (Given how shakey this year's rookie class is, I'm looking a lot harder at second year players.)

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...Rookies-090318

                Rookie Watch: Who's got promise?
                By David Thorpe
                Scouts Inc.

                Can you guess the two things the following players have in common? Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Danny Granger, Kevin Martin, Al Jefferson, Devin Harris, Antawn Jamison, Zach Randolph, Joe Johnson, Tony Parker, Stephen Jackson, Michael Redd, Al Harrington and David West. The first should be pretty easy to figure out: All of these guys are big-time scorers in the NBA, averaging 20-plus points per game, to be exact. And at 19.7 ppg, Corey Maggette is close to joining this club, too. The other connection is that every guy on the list averaged less than 10 ppg as a rookie. The teaching point is obvious: If a rookie is not scoring (or rebounding or defending) much now, it is not indicative of how his career is going to play out -- as long as the player continues to develop. Naturally, playing for the right coach and in the right system help a great deal, too. Similarly, those rookies who are currently listed in the top 10 of our rankings aren't guaranteed to stay on the path to stardom just because they've enjoyed some success. The formula is simple: (great work ethic + good attitude) x (great coaching + good system) = a productive player. Rookies can't control their coaching and system, but they can control their work ethic and attitude. So control them they should. Especially rookies who have had more downs than ups -- things can turn around quickly in this league. Let's take a look at some guys who have a chance to be solid pros despite so-so rookie campaigns. (And as for my rankings, Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook are still tied for the No. 1 spot.)

                Anthony Randolph, Warriors
                 Randolph is quietly enjoying his best month as a pro, averaging 10.6 points, 7.1 boards and 1.9 blocks a game in March. His 14 points, 7 rebounds, 3 blocks and 3 steals helped spark the Warriors to a win over Dallas on Friday. He may play with a chip on his shoulder too often, but that chip causes him to play with energy and competitiveness -- always a good thing in the NBA.

                Drafted in the second round, DeAndre Jordan is a project.
                Anthony Morrow, Warriors
                Morrow hasn't put up the monster numbers he produced when he got some run early in the season, but he's a rock in the rotation. He looks like he can be a valuable shooter off the bench in this league for years to come.

                DeAndre Jordan, Clippers
                Jordan has shown flashes as a shot-blocker -- he has two or more blocks in 10 games so far in 2009. He's a project to be sure, but the Clippers may have found themselves a second-round steal if Jordan can build on what he has done to this point.

                Ryan Anderson, Nets
                Anderson has seen his share of good times and decent minutes, averaging 9.2 ppg and 25 mpg in February. His minutes have dropped in March, but he still projects to be a 3-point-shooting specialist in this league, at the very least; he has the potential to be more than that.

                Mario Chalmers, Heat
                Chalmers is settling in as a solid point guard -- one who greatly benefits from playing next to D-Wade, of course. Still, his toughness and improved shot-making talent mean he'll get strong consideration to be Miami's point guard of the future. But that audition won't conclude until the summer of 2010 is settled, so he can't relax.

                Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Bucks
                Perhaps the biggest surprise of the class, Mbah a Moute is a solid wing defender -- which alone is very valuable for a team. But he is also smart on offense, taking good shots and finishing them with regularity (47 percent on the season). If he can learn to make 3s (0-for-4 this season), his value will skyrocket -- think Bruce Bowen and Shane Battier.

                George Hill, Spurs
                Hill has found a way to get rotation minutes over the course of the season, soaring early on when given 24 minutes per game, and making contributions even when playing 10 less minutes per game. He looks to be an excellent prospect for San Antonio -- he enjoys playing defense and adds an element of athleticism to a team that needs both.

                Nicolas Batum, Trail Blazers
                A ball conveyor and a defensive presence, the Frenchman has started all but four games for the playoff-bound Blazers and is averaging a season-best 7 ppg in March. Like Mbah a Moute, developing a steady 3-point shot would do wonders for Batum's future. He has had mixed results from long range this season (34.7 percent).

                Courtney Lee is soaring in his role with the Magic.
                Courtney Lee, Magic
                Lee has a tightly defined role just like the handful of other rookies starting for playoff teams: Make open 3s (he's shooting 41.3 percent, third among rookies), play tough defense, move the ball and get back on defense. He is doing all of those things and should be able to show some of his scoring ability next season as well. However, he can not relax and assume the starting 2-guard position is his for the long term in Orlando.

                Jerryd Bayless, Trail Blazers
                Of all the lottery picks, Bayless has had arguably the most disappointing season, especially given his strong play during summer league. But in his defense, he has had few chances to really shine. However, he has shown enough potential in his limited minutes -- down to below 10 per game this month -- to give hope that he can be a strong starter in this league.

                Kosta Koufos, Jazz
                The big man has not appeared in a game since mid-February. Still, he showed enough talent when he was playing to suggest he'll have a place in the league for years to come. He still could be a starter for Utah in the future.

                Donte Greene, Kings
                Greene has some maturity issues to deal with, as evidenced when he took a prank too far with vet Bobby Jackson. And he's got a lot to learn about how to be a productive NBA player. But I love his spirit at every game. Oftentimes, spirit alone can be a foundation for a young player, especially one with the size and skills of Greene.

                Kyle Weaver, Thunder
                Weaver filled in admirably for the Thunder when Kevin Durant went down with an ankle injury. Weaver scored 10-plus points in four straight games and looked like he had some potential as a 3-point shooter. Considering that he was drafted for his defense, those are positive signs. He has a chance to be a nice bench option for the Thunder next season.
                Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 04-10-2009, 09:21 AM.
                Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                  Koufos got a mention, but Rush/Hibbert didn't?

                  Ahh well.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                    Keep in mind how many games the Pacers had on national television this year. I do not think this dude has seen the Pacers play much the last month of the season. He lists Deandre Jordan but not Roy Hibbert.

                    I think the biggest suprise of the season for me was Jason Thompson.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                      So Rush and Roy aren't good enough to be in a top 15 list but aren't bad enough to be "good in spite of a so-so Rookie year".

                      Heck with 'em. I think we got exactly what we needed.
                      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

                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                        I have watched a fair amount of Pacers ball this year to realize that both of our rookies are pretty good, and I really could care less if the national media thinks that or not.

                        This was a pretty deep draft and in other years I really doubt that our guys would have been so overlooked. I can't even fully appreciate the deepness of the draft because I really don't follow the NBA, I just follow the Pacers. But I do know that our guys looked pretty good especially at the end of the year.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                          Originally posted by BillS
                          Heck with 'em. I think we got exactly what we needed.

                          Originally posted by dcpacerfan
                          both of our rookies are pretty good, and I really could care less if the national media thinks that or not.

                          Three things matter:

                          1. Winning games
                          2. Winning championships
                          3. Selling tickets

                          Media honors don't matter.
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            Three things matter:

                            1. Winning games
                            2. Winning championships
                            3. Selling tickets

                            Media honors don't matter.
                            In today's NBA, where the Player is marketed above the Team, Media Honors often are necessary for item 3.
                            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

                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN's Rookie Awards

                              While the mention of players like Kofus was a bit puzzling let us not forget Rush has been lost for 4/5 of the season. Don't get me wrong, I am very satisfied with Hibbert and Rush lately, and think they will be welcome additions, but to not be mentioned prominently in an article like this is not a huge surprise or injustice.

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X