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

30 Teams, 30 Days: Indiana Draft Preview

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

  • 30 Teams, 30 Days: Indiana Draft Preview

    2008-2009 Finish: 36-46
    2009 Draft Picks: 13th, 52nd

    Pre-Draft 2009-10 Projected Starters:
    PG: T.J. Ford
    SG: Brandon Rush
    SF: Danny Granger
    PF: Troy Murphy
    C: Roy Hibbert
    Key Reserves:
    G: Jarrett Jack
    GF: Mike Dunleavy (upon return)
    C: Jeff Foster

    What The Pacers Do Well:

    The Pacers just missed the playoffs for the third straight season, and were really only very good at one thing – scoring. The averaged 105.1 points per game, fifth in the NBA, behind the Suns, Warriors, Lakers and Knicks. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that four of the top-five scoring clubs missed the postseason this spring.

    Like Phoenix, Golden State and New York, Indiana had trouble stopping opponents. They allowed the opposing team to score 106.2 points; the prime reason why they finished 36-46 for the second year in a row.

    They ranked second in the league in rebounding, but, in a growing theme, allowed opponents to clean the glass even more frequently. Only the Knicks and Warriors (yeah, them again) allowed opposing teams to accumulate more rebounds this season.

    Indiana ranked in the top-ten in both three-point and foul shooting, but overall they shot just 45.5% from the field (19th in the league).

    They competed almost every night, which wasn’t reflected in their overall record, but is when you consider the astounding 21 games they participated in that were decided by three points or less. Only the Spurs (19) came close, and Indiana was just 9-12 in such contests.

    They failed to win more than three games in a row (once in early November), and had losing streaks of four and five (twice) over the course of the season.

    Greatest Areas Of Improvement:

    A Defensive Presence
    As mentioned above, the Pacers were among the worst defensive teams in the league this past season. Danny Granger is a strong defender, but a lot of his energy is expended on the offense end. Brandon Rush is serviceable, and hopefully improving, as a defender, which places a majority of the focus on the interior.

    Troy Murphy had an All-Star caliber season offensively, but is a sub-par defender. Jeff Foster is an above-average defender, but he isn’t (and never really was) athletic enough to handle today’s version of an NBA center. I do believe that Roy Hibbert will become a reliable option at center, but that might be another season away. Adding an intimating force in the paint would greatly improve Indiana’s all-around defense.

    Dunleavy Insurance
    The Pacers don’t expect Mike Dunleavy to take the court before 2010, which means that they must address his absence. Retaining Marquis Daniels, via the team option for 2009-10 on his contract, would address that, but they still haven’t made a decision. They have until the end of June, but, internally at least, the decision will be made prior to the draft. If they don’t exercise Daniels’ option, a wing player could be an option, perhaps in the second round.

    Who’s Gone Number 13 Recently?

    The 13th pick has been rather unlucky as of late, with no true difference-makers found in recent years. Rush and Sefolosha are probably the best of the lot below, while Wright, May and Telfair have been viewed as disappointments (to varying degrees). The Pacers do, however, have a history of finds studs in the middle of the draft.

    2008
    Brandon Rush, Portland (to Indiana)

    2007
    Julian Wright, New Orleans

    2006
    Thabo Sefolosha, Philadelphia

    2005
    Sean May, Charlotte

    2004
    Sebastian Telfair, Portland

    Who Should The Pacers Target?

    - DeJuan Blair of Pittsburgh

    Blair gives the Pacers exactly what they need, and is a good bet to be called 13th next Thursday assuming Indiana isn’t worried about his knees or weight. He isn’t the size of your typical power forward, but he’s rough and tough enough to make a difference for the Pacers.

    -Jeff Teague of Wake Forest

    The Pacers aren’t necessarily in the market for a point guard, unless they unexpectedly allow Jarrett Jack to leave as a restricted free agent, but Teague is a great fit for Jim O’Brien’s offense. He makes good decisions off the dribble, something that is imperative for a passer in their fast system.

    - BJ Mullens of Ohio State

    Indiana seemed to like Mullens following his recent visit to Indianapolis, but taking Mullens would mean selecting centers that need seasoning in back-to-back years. With that said, he’s more agile and athletic than Roy Hibbert, aspects that hampered the former Hoya in his rookie season.

    Picks Over the Past Five Years

    Aside from way back in 1990 (Antonio Davis), the Pacers have never been very good at finding talent in the second round of the draft. They have, however, drafted relatively well at varying spots in the first round. They turned Bayless into Rush, and Danny Granger has turned into a huge steal. Williams should be held accountable for his own bust status, while Harrison’s status overseas indicates how well he fared.

    2008
    Jerryd Bayless, 11th (to Portland)
    Nathan Jawai, 41st (to Toronto)

    2007
    No picks

    2006
    Shawne Williams, 17th
    Alexander Johnson, 45th (to Portland)

    2005
    Danny Granger, 17th
    Erazem Lorabek, 46th

    2004
    David Harrison, 29th
    Rashad Wright, 59th

    Who Do the Fans Want?

    According to Andrew Perna’s Indiana Pacers Lottery Summit, an interactive forum featuring the responses of true RealGM hoops fans hoping to add their two cents to the Pacers Draft discussion, the fans of Indiana have made it known that they would like to draft a power forward with strong defense.

    The Verdicts

    1. What could the team have done differently to make the playoffs?

    Boneman2: I think the loss of Mike Dunleavy, coupled with all the new faces, we were bound to slip a fair amount. I was actually pleased with the team’s mentality and hustle. It could have been much worse.

    PR07: They could've played better defense night-in and night-out. However, despite their defensive deficiencies, they were in a lot of ball games, but simply lacked the killer instinct to finish off teams in the fourth quarter.

    chatard5: If they played better defense.

    PaceWalker: If we played better defense and learned how to close out games. So many games were decided by a few points.

    Miller4Ever: The final lineup was very different from the one that started the year. Hindsight is 20/20, but they could have played better defense, specifically when looking at matchups. Several times Jarrett Jack had to face someone with a significant size advantage, and the players in the post fouled too much.

    PacerPerspective: The simple answer is just a few more W's, especially against the Bulls. When Chicago swung those midseason deals, they were out of it.

    fredjones20: Better defense, and the ability to keep leads.

    2. Where were the team’s biggest strengths?

    Boneman2: Our biggest strength seemed to be our character, especially in the community.

    PR07: Chemistry. This is a group of guys that really seem to like each other on and off the court. The chemistry shows on the court as the guys are more than willing to pass the ball to get someone the best look possible. I'd also say scoring; almost every guy on this roster is capable of putting up double-digit scoring on any given night.

    chatard5: We can score very well.

    PaceWalker: Obviously, the All-Star season for Danny Granger was the best thing, as well as the development of the rookies. Scoring was our biggest strength in general, and our chemistry as a team.

    Miller4Ever: Offense, obviously. We had a high-scoring offense with accurate three-point shooting from Murphy and others.

    PacerPerspective: For the first time in a long time, they had good chemistry. They can also score the basketball, and at times, rebound.

    fredjones20: Scoring and rebounding.

    3. Who had a surprisingly effective season?

    Boneman2: I think Jack proved himself this season. I know Murphy did a surprisingly good job, but he has always been a double -double guy. He just returned to form.

    PR07: Murphy. If you look past his contract, you will see a consistent double-double machine, and probably one of the better power forward's in the league. His low-post defense leaves something to be desired, but he's exceptional on the glass and really perfected his outside game.

    chatard5: Murphy played great. I knew he could rebound a little bit and shoot the long-ball; I just didn't know he could do each of them so well. He was a double-double machine.

    PaceWalker: Both rookies, Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert, progressed well. I was happy with how Jack played in the second half of the season as well.

    Miller4Ever: Murphy comes to mind immediately. He stepped up his game and became a better part of the Pacers. Jack also had a great year, proving that he could man the point, wresting that position from the "all-star caliber" T.J. Ford. Jamaal Tinsley gets an honorable mention here.

    PacerPerspective: I thought Murphy played up to his contract this season. Larry Bird predicted he would, but I wasn't as confident.

    fredjones20: I hate to say it, but Murphy.

    4. Who had a surprisingly ineffective season?

    Boneman2: I expected more production from both Rasho Nesterovic and Jeff Foster.

    PR07: Nesterovic. He had such a low impact on the team; I often forgot he was even on the roster. He never really seemed to stand out in any regard on the court, and his spot on the depth chart was given to Hibbert, who took it and never looked back. I think he realized that he was simply an expiring contract to the Pacers, with no long-term future.

    chatard5: Obviously, Dunleavy being hurt didn't help the team at all. You can't be effective when you aren't playing.

    PaceWalker: I expected a lot more out of Rasho, and more consistency from Ford.

    Miller4Ever: Dunleavy was supposed to be part of a 1-2 punch that never happened, but it wasn't his fault. Besides Granger, everyone had bad stretches and good stretches. No one was really consistent through the year.

    PacerPerspective: I expected Hibbert to be more of a factor, but I forgot to realize it takes time for big men to develop.

    fredjones20: I thought everyone played to their potential, but I would have liked to see T.J. play better.

    5. How confident are you in the front office heading into the offseason?

    Boneman2: I still have confidence in the front office, especially after last season’s flurry of moves seemed to position us nicely for the present and future.

    PR07: Pretty confident. We have a nice young core in Granger, Ford, Rush, Hibbert, and perhaps Jack. If the team can add to that core with our draft picks, the future is really starting to look up for this franchise.

    chatard5: I am pretty confident in the front office. I wasn't too happy with the acquisition of Rush after we drafted Bayless, but he looked good, so my confidence is growing.

    PaceWalker: Very confident. After last offseason and the confidence I have for the future, I believe Bird and David Morway are on the right track with the team.

    Miller4Ever: I have a few doubts, but they make good decisions overall. They may not make a genius pick like with Granger again, but they will get players who can help improve our team.

    PacerPerspective: I'm very confident. Bird and Morway have proven that they won't give up the future to win now, which is tempting considering how weak the bottom of the Eastern Conference has been.

    fredjones20: 60%; with Bird you never know.

    6. What are the team’s biggest needs in the draft?

    Boneman2: We need an interior presence at both ends, but the pickings are slim-to-none. A point guard to develop wouldn't hurt.

    PR07: An interior presence that can mix it up in the middle, whether that be a power forward or center. Depth at shooting guard is a cause for concern with Dunleavy's uncertainty, and the team could stand to upgrade the point guard spot.

    chatard5: We need defense, anywhere and everywhere. I would say a big man that can play defense, probably a power forward.

    PaceWalker: We need a athletic and defensive minded power forward that isn't afraid to bang around down low.

    Miller4Ever: Athleticism, especially in the post and at the point guard spot. The Pacers just need people fast and big enough to play man-to-man defense.

    PacerPerspective: A power forward, or anyone that can bring a defensive mentality to his position.

    fredjones20: We need a power forward more than anything else.

    7. Who would you like the Pacers to take with the 13th pick?

    Boneman2: I am back-and-forth with this, but I think DeJuan Blair could have an immediate impact.

    PR07: Blair.

    chatard5: I want Eric Maynor, if nobody unexpectedly slips. I think we can then try and trade Ford and re-sign Jack. Then there is no question about the starting point guard. Hopefully, in a couple of years Maynor turns out to be a good player and can start.

    PaceWalker: I think the Pacers will choose Maynor at 13. I'm really not super-intrigued with anyone projected around the pick, but I think Maynor should have a solid NBA career.

    Miller4Ever: The best player available. Blair can come right in and give us some things we need, but a better pick would be Maynor, and if he's around, Jrue Holiday.

    PacerPerspective: There have been rumors that Jordan Hill could slide out of the top-10, and I'd love to get him. More than likely though, someone like Blair or B.J. Mullens.

    fredjones20: Jeff Teague or Earl Clark.
    by Jason M. Williams
    RealGM
    http://pacers.realgm.com/articles/16...draft_preview/
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


Working...
X