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

Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

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

  • #31
    Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

    Originally posted by Jim R View Post
    I bet at one point someone said, "You mean to tell me you'd want Danny Granger to start? Is this a joke?"

    Do you realize how inefficient Danny Granger is on offense? His FG% has tumbled as his role has expanded. He leads the team in turnover average, which isn't a good thing even though he leads the team in minutes played. High volume, low percentage shooters isn't a good thing. You can't be mesmerized by points per game. On a team that produces a great number of possessions per game, on the 29th best offensive rebounding team in the league, given that he is a horrid defender, his production (not just his scoring) could be duplicated in a combination of redistributing shots throughout the offense and finding an improved defender.

    Man...he averages 24 points per game. He must be a stud. Signed, Antawn Jamison.

    It's clear you really didn't read what I posted, given the way you summed up what I wrote. My MAIN point of my post is to improve this team's PG play. One way to do that is to use the draft pick to do it, and since it doesn't appear at #10 to be much direct help there, you either deal it or draft in such a way to increase flexibility elsewhere to make a deal.

    I would much rather have a definitive talent and leader at the PG spot on the roster, along with Hayward at the SF spot going forward, than Granger and what the Pacers have now at the PG spot. Granger is the Pacers' best asset, but from a big picture perspective, no team will achieve what they want with him as their best player.

    The Pacers are second in the league in possessions. The Pacers are 29th in the league in offensive rebounding. Their leading scorer is a forward shooting 43% from the field. If you think the dealing of him is in anyway close to being a joke, you really don't understand much about the game.


    Good post Jim, it is good to see someone take a critical eye to Granger's game. I think everything you said was true, however, the injury excuse is valid, at least for this last year. Next year is where we will really see where Granger is at. I have no problem at all in trading Danny if we got a good deal. In fact, his value might be as high as it will ever get right now.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Tell that to the Lakers, the Heat, the Cavs, heck even the 2008 Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Olajuwan's Rockets. The Spurs started out building around Duncan and won a championship with a diminutive PG.

      You wanna argue that Danny's not good enough to be the number 1 fiddle on a championship team? Fine, I'll play that, but any PG you are gonna get for him isn't going to be good enough to be number 1 fiddle on a championship team either. You're just rearranging the food on your plate to make it more palatable to you, it's not going to change the way it tastes.

      Great PGs don't guarantee championships, I don't know where this theory comes from, they rarely even create them. The last team that won multiple championships with a PG as their best player? Isaiah's Pistons.

      Talent wins championships. I don't care what position it is.
      I understand where you are going with Wade, Lebron, and Kobe but DG is nowhere close to any of them. And the others are irrelevant as Olajuwon and Duncan are both Dwight Howard type players. I also realize that Danny alone isnt gonna bring in a top pg, but a package with him in it just may. Also I never suggested that a great pg guarantees a championship, but having a top tire "quarterback" for your team is where you should start building imo.
      Last edited by HC; 06-17-2010, 03:27 PM.
      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

        You said you have to start with PG, and I said no you don't. It's pretty clear you don't have to. Let's look at the great PGs of the past ten years...

        The two best, Nash and Kidd, both have ZERO championships.

        Both of them had their chances, neither one got it done. I just think there is this myth out there that PG is the most important position on the court and people like to compare them to a "quarterback" the truth is, you can't compare football and basketball. They are 100% different sports. They share literally nothing in common.

        I don't think there is a "most important position" on a basketball team. There is talent and then you have to make sure the talent fits together. Whereas in football, its much more important to make sure you fill every position and typically you have to start with the QB slot.


        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

          Everyone has an opinion. It is mine that as the pg goes, so does the team. And yes both Nash and Kidd had their chances, it doesn't mean that it was their fault the outcome wasn't different. Them teams may not have made it to the playoffs at all without Nash and Kidd in place.
          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

            I'd argue that as goes the most talented player, so goes the team. As goes the playmaker, so goes the team.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Well Granger's efficiency dropped this past season due to injury, he had to settle for bad jump shots instead of taking it to the rim and mixing it up as he did a year ago when he was an all star. That year he was an insanely efficient scorer.

              He wasn't running around screens and getting good open looks this year because he was hobbled. During the 08-09 season the Pacers ran plays for him to curl underneath the basket to catch the ball in stride around the free throw line, too which he could then either drive it or pop up for a relatively easy jumper.
              He hasn't shot above 45% in three years, and he shot as many FT's per game this year than he ever has.
              Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I'd argue that as goes the most talented player, so goes the team. As goes the playmaker, so goes the team.
                And I don't completely disagree with that as long as we are talking about Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, DWade, Howard, Duncan. If we had a great pg in here, Danny's game would dramatically improve imo. Problem is we have nothing other than Danny that could possibly bring that top pg here.
                "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                  But the fact is this, any PG we bring in while sending out Danny is not going to significantly improve the team. Like I said, you're just pushing the potatoes over where the corn was and the corn where the potatoes were because you like having your potatoes next to your turkey. It's all gonna taste the same it just looks a little different.

                  And trading out Danny and bringing back any all star of comparable talent to him, regardless of what position they play, isn't going to suddenly improve this team, or IMO make it easier to improve this team.

                  Would I entertain a Granger deal? Absolutely, but it would have to be a pretty strong deal.


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    But the fact is this, any PG we bring in while sending out Danny is not going to significantly improve the team. Like I said, you're just pushing the potatoes over where the corn was and the corn where the potatoes were because you like having your potatoes next to your turkey. It's all gonna taste the same it just looks a little different.

                    And trading out Danny and bringing back any all star of comparable talent to him, regardless of what position they play, isn't going to suddenly improve this team, or IMO make it easier to improve this team.

                    Would I entertain a Granger deal? Absolutely, but it would have to be a pretty strong deal.
                    I think what it comes down to is that great pg's are harder to come across, and people see Danny's position as easier to replace than the pg, therefore he becomes expendable if the right deal came along. I also think it is possible that a decent draft pick, DG, and a good expiring could get us a pretty good pg....Or maybe we could get lucky in the draft...but that isnt happening.
                    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      I believe the point is to use an all-star level SF, Granger, to get an all-star level PG. Whatever your attachment to Danny, and I like him, you must admit that his skill set is easier to replicate than is the skill set of a high quality pass-first PG who also can score and is not a defensive sieve. So in theory it is not a half-baked idea. But identifying that PG and a team willing to give him up is a task probably too great for Larry Bird.
                      But if Danny's skillset is easier to replicate than a quality PG, what GM in his right mind trades us that PG for Danny? That doesn't seem to reflect that Bird is an idiot, it seems to reflect that there isn't a GM who is more of an idiot out there.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                        Originally posted by Jim R View Post
                        He hasn't shot above 45% in three years, and he shot as many FT's per game this year than he ever has.
                        Sooo... what are you saying? The Granger from 06-07 who average 13.5 pts a game was better than the Granger from the last 2 years who averaged 24-25pts a game? Just because he shot 45%? Compared to 44-42% over the last 2 years?

                        Shots selection was Granger's only problem last year, due to injury. Yet people are wanting to trade him away over 2% drop in FG%.

                        Well I'd like to see him rebound the ball better this coming season, no reason he couldn't average 7 a game.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                          Oh man Gordon Hayward himself is now here defending Granger, this should get good.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Oh man Gordon Hayward himself is now here defending Granger, this should get good.
                            I'm a bigger homer for Danny than I am for Gordon.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              I'm a bigger homer for Danny than I am for Gordon.
                              That's terrifying.


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                                Originally posted by Hillman's 'Fro' View Post
                                Jim-

                                Nice try. I don't disagree at all re Granger. You won't find many
                                others on PD who concur though. When it comes to DG they 'see
                                what they believe'.

                                Just for the sake of discussion though, I'm not sure who is out there
                                in the PG realm (wether existing or in the draft) to make that kind of
                                move a fit right now.

                                If Granger and an expiring deal is enough to bring back an existing,
                                top-5-6 PG, it's worth doing. But I doubt it is. And obviously, there
                                is no PG beyond Wall (who is presumably unobtainable) worth trading
                                into the top few slots in this draft for.
                                I doubt it would be a straight up trade or even a simple trade, but value isn't just about scoring or offensive prowess. Basketball is a sport where you make an impact on both ends of the floor each time you're out there, either positively or negatively.

                                When the Pacers traded Detlef Schrempf for Derrick McKey, I remember the sports radio crowd going nutso over it. Injuries to McKey aside, it was a good deal for the Pacers. It was better fit for what they had and what they needed. He was their best player.

                                Almost everyone who has argued against it has put it in the context of giving Granger away. That's silly. People who think Hayward will be a waste of a pick are silly too.


                                Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                                Any decision about moving the 10th and Granger should not center around Hayward. To me he is not one of those cannot miss prospects like Durant that will turn your franchise around.

                                I am not opposed to moving Granger if we can get back a top 5 point guard or shooting guard, but I just do not see that happening.

                                I did find it rather humorous that you wanted Dunleavy to start. The guy has played a total of 29 games in two years. That knee is not something I am willing to take a chance. That would thrust Hayward into the starting spot and no way is he ready for that.
                                I don't think the 10th pick centers around getting Hayward. The first thing I said in my post was the exception being someone else who might slip through. However, at that stage, the best players are all wings. Avery Bradley is a poor shooting shooting guard, and Eric Bledsoe is a big stretch.

                                The idea is to get value at #10 to help, and in my view it's accomplished in two ways, filling a need, which isn't likely, or feeding a strength to enable flexibility. If you can't do those things, it should be dealt as part of a package to bring leadership and ability to the PG spot.

                                This team is in more dire need of a plan at PG than they are high scoring, inefficient season stats put up by Granger. If a PG can be had without dealing Granger, SUPER, but I bet at some point groans will surface about "touches".

                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                                Hayward would be a complete waste of a pick for Indiana, unless we're using him in a trade to get a good PG. Period. We have more than enough perimeter players. I would burn The Fieldhouse to ground, if we picked Hayward, but didn't make a trade with him.
                                More than enough perimeter players? You need to check the contract statuses of the Pacers.

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Epic fail

                                Granger shoots the 3 more, and this shot has 150% value compared to hitting a 2.

                                Danny's AdjFG% in each season to account for this
                                49.4
                                52.2
                                51.7
                                51.8
                                49.8

                                That's a mark of consistency that spans 2 coaches/styles and a couple of injuries, not to mention being one of the few good players on his team.

                                This you label as "tumbled".


                                The sweet irony that if someone's shooting "tumbled" it was Haywards 3pt shot from last year to this.


                                And throw in the "don't like Aminu" who would be a perfect replacement for Danny if you were using him to adjust the roster by trade. See, I'm not even against a Danny trade if it makes sense from a position overload adjustment, created by being able to draft a better SF than another position at 10th (or say equal if Aminu falls).

                                But you aren't stuck at the team's ceiling with Danny, nor stuck financially because of his deal in the sense that he's got to be your only great player.

                                It's just so much easier to take equal or lower risk guys at other spots, or trade the pick for 2 picks of similar risk than to force some Danny trade. And I'm not even getting into forcing Hayward to fit.


                                Question - have you watched James Anderson play extensively, or Luke Babbitt? If not then you've got to let go of the Hayward love affair. Other wings played some outstanding NCAA ball last season and don't have to cost you your 10th pick plus trading your current AS who played better AFTER signing his new deal.

                                I've not seen either extensively, but I also didn't see either of them be instrumental, the focal point of a team, a difference maker even at times when his shot wasn't falling, for a mid major team reaching the championship game of the NCAA tournament. Babbitt is a tweener, especially defensively, and Anderson isn't being projected around the 10th pick.

                                You can adjust Granger's FG% all you want for the purposes of your argument, but on a pathetic rebounding team like the Pacers, Granger needs to see lower percentage shots go down and higher percentage shots go up. There are too many times Granger looks to be in it for the stats, and it doubles up every time he gets owned on defense.

                                Granger could be so much more than what he is. None of which has anything to do with how much he can score.

                                Forcing Hayward to fit? He's a SF. There is no "fit" problem. Even if the Pacers drafted him and played a longer range plan of working him in, seeing if he could play alongside Granger, the point is to feed a team's strength to provide flexibility. Meanwhile, most involved in the draft process have Hayward going before the Pacers even pick. The Pacers getting Hayward at 10 is likely to be a stretch that he would be there.

                                Aminu isn't a worker, and I know too much about that at this point to feel good about him. I guess if he was there at 10 that would be a low risk pick, considering where he is being projected. He could be good if he eventually "got it", but he's also good enough to get you fired.
                                Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X