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

Over/Under: Central Division

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

    Over/Under: Central Division

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...vision-debates

    For the third time in as many seasons, a team hailing from the Central Division reigned supreme in the NBA during the regular season. But this time, it was a different MVP winner leading the way.

    Behind Derrick Rose, anointed the best baller by voters in 2010-11, the Chicago Bulls finished with the best record in both the East and the NBA for the first time since the days of yore (i.e., the 1990s). But with expectations higher, can these grown-up Bulls get back to the top next season?

    That's just one of the five questions our Central experts weigh in on:



    1. Over/Under: Eastern Conference finals for the Bulls.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Push. The Bulls will take a small step backward as reigning MVP Derrick Rose faces more defensive attention, and the Miami Heat will improve moderately. But who can even challenge those two teams? The aging Boston Celtics? The soon-to-be-Dwight-Howard-less Orlando Magic? The hanging-together-by-a-thread Atlanta Hawks? The no-defense New York Knicks? Those teams don't have a chance, and no other Eastern Conference team had a winning record last season.

    John Krolik, Cavs: The Blog: Push. I love the way they play defense, Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah should be healthy the whole season, and the Bulls' offense should improve, either by Tom Thibodeau figuring out ways to lighten the load on Derrick Rose or Rose making the leap and becoming a player worthy of "best active player" consideration, not just an MVP. At the same time, I don't think they have enough to get past the Heat, if only because depth matters a lot less in the postseason.

    Jeremy Schmidt, Bucksetball: Under. We know they'll be a great defensive team and we know Derrick Rose is going to be a candidate for MVP, but can they pull off another ultra-successful season with so little else on offense? I say we see a step back this season, but a bright future still lies ahead.

    David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Under, mostly because the East has LeBron and Wade on the same team, plus Dwight Howard and Stan Van Gundy, and throw in a Boston team that can fill the center void with a real player and not a brand name. Miami should lock down one spot, which leaves three teams for the other. And don't forget how Chicago struggled last season once saddled with high expectations.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Push. They made it that far last season and that was despite Noah and Boozer missing 34 and 23 games, respectively. But unless something drastic happens in collective bargaining, the Heat do still employ LeBron, Wade and Bosh. We will likely see a rematch of the 2011 Eastern Conference finals. And the same result.

    2. Over/Under: 42 wins for the Pacers next season.


    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Under. Frank Vogel provided a nice boost last season, but any coaching change would've invigorated the Indiana Pacers last season. And even with motivation that probably won't carry into this season, Indiana didn't play like a 42-win team under Vogel. Caveat: Free agency could push the Pacers, likely to have cap room in any model, to a winning record.

    John Krolik, Cavs: The Blog: I'm definitely taking the under. Lockout, remember? I'll also take the under on them being a .500 team. Hibbert faded fast last season, Granger is a second option without a true superstar teammate, and I feel like their showing against the Bulls was more of a moment in time than a harbinger for 2011-12.

    Jeremy Schmidt, Bucksetball: Over. It's easy to forget these things with the lockout, but Indiana could really improve during free agency. Larry Bird's squad went through salary-cap liposuction when the clock struck midnight on the 2010-11 season. The Pacers should be able to add a solid piece while not losing anyone that matters. Unless you still think Mike Dunleavy Jr. matters.

    David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Under. More depth in the East means fewer wins from that side of the ledger, and 28 of the Pacers' 37 wins last season came from teams in the East. George Hill can help, but I still think they need their bigs to make a major jump to get to 41-plus victories.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Over. Last season, Indiana finished 20-18 under the helm of interim coach Frank Vogel. Stretch that winning rate over a full season and you get 43 wins. Moreover, the team's personnel and experience are still improving, most notably among the George Boys: Hill and Paul. New Orleans Hornets free agent David West could be added to the roster as well.


    3. Over/Under: One Bucks player in the 2012 All-Star Game.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Under. Michael Jordan forfeited $100,000 just to compliment Andrew Bogut, and the center deserves the praise (although maybe not at that cost). But Carmelo Anthony and Deron Williams have joined the East since last year's All-Star Game, and an image-conscience NBA after a lockout will push its stars. A defensive-minded Australian playing in Milwaukee faces an uphill climb.

    John Krolik, Cavs: The Blog: If Andrew Bogut is healthy, push. If he's not, under. Brandon Jennings is not an All-Star-caliber guard, nor is he remotely close to being one.

    Jeremy Schmidt, Bucksetball: Push. Andrew Bogut has been in a strange place the past couple of years: The edge of All-Stardom while miles away from actual stardom. His market and lack of celebrity plays a significant role in his imbalance of league-wide attention relative to his performances over the past two seasons. If healthy, he should post strong enough numbers to finally tip the scales.

    David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Under. Even a healthy Bogut, who's clearly an All-Star talent, will have to fend off bigs from better teams such as Joakim Noah and Al Horford.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Under. Bogut is good enough but Dwight and Horford are better. If there were 15 spots per conference as there should be, the Aussie, who should be finally recovered from a brutal arm injury in 2010, would make it. As it stands, he will again be snubbed.


    4. Over/Under: 20 starts for Brandon Knight in 2011-12.


    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Under. Brandon Knight isn't better than Rodney Stuckey right now, and he might not be better than Will Bynum yet. The Detroit Pistons drafted Knight for good reasons, but many of them involve Knight's potential, not his ability to contribute as a rookie. A lengthy lockout could give him time to catch up, but fewer games would mean fewer potential starts.

    John Krolik, Cavs: The Blog: Over. Considering how much of a mess the Pistons were and will probably continue to be, they'll experiment with Knight starting at least a quarter of their games. Remember, part of Ben Gordon knows he's best as instant offense off the bench.

    Jeremy Schmidt, Bucksetball: Over. What have we seen over four seasons that makes us confident that Rodney Stuckey is a long-term answer at point guard? In short, nothing. The Pistons are going nowhere, and it's been there for two seasons already. The future is now, and that means big minutes for Knight, the first reasonable facsimile of a point guard in Detroit since Chauncey Billups.

    David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Over. He's got poise and smarts beyond his years, and will earn the trust from his coaches to let him start and figure it all out. Kind of like Jrue Holiday two seasons ago.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Way over. Who is going to prevent him from starting? Will Bynum? Rodney Stuckey? This franchise is a mess. The Ben Gordon/Charlie Villanueva summer crushed Detroit's flexibility and the new CBA could crush it further. The Pistons need to make roster moves, but first they need to determine what they already have. Give the kid the ball and see what he can do.

    5. Over/Under: Eight assists per game for Kyrie Irving as a rookie.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Under. Just 11 rookies have ever averaged at least eight assists per game, and nine of their teams played at a faster tempo than the Cavaliers did last season. Irving won't see enough possessions to come near eight assists per game, especially with Baron Davis and Ramon Sessions eating into his minutes.

    John Krolik, Cavs: The Blog: Under. Kyrie Irving isn't a pure point guard, and Baron Davis is. Eight assists per game seems like a very aggressive prediction when you take those two things into consideration.

    Jeremy Schmidt, Bucksetball: Under. At some point this season, Irving will penetrate and dish. Then he'll look over to see the ball roll out of bounds as Luke Harangody stands helpless after dropping yet another pass. Such is the life of a player much more talented than his teammates. But as Irving hones his instincts and his teammates improve, eight should be feasible.

    David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Under. Irving needs to first learn how to be an efficient scorer before he can start racking up assists. Cleveland is not built to fly up and down the court either (yet), so he'll have to earn most of his assists in the half court. Much tougher to do without a big-time scorer.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Under. Only 11 rookies have ever eclipsed eight assists per night. Only John Wall and Jamaal Tinsley have done it this millennium. Magic, J-Kidd and CP3 failed to do it. I'll stick with the odds.
    Oh Jamaal , keeps poping up like the ghost of past
    Last edited by 90'sNBARocked; 09-23-2011, 05:05 PM.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Over/Under: Central Division

    Most of those ppl forgot about the cap room.
    if we don't a marginal All Star like Nene or West (or he's not fine yet), we are probably under.
    with one of those guys, it should be 45-48 win range.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Over/Under: Central Division

      Originally posted by ballism View Post
      Most of those ppl forgot about the cap room.
      if we don't a marginal All Star like Nene or West (or he's not fine yet), we are probably under.
      with one of those guys, it should be 45-48 win range.
      You can't make that kind of called based on someone who may not even sign with the Pacers as a free agent. Having cap space doesn't mean you will be able to use it to improve your team.

      Even so give me the exact same team as last year with Vogel as coach, and I expect the team to win 45 games.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Over/Under: Central Division

        Learning curve for any newly acquired players, players fighting for rotation spots, who knows how short the season will be with the shorter the season the less time for young players to further mature in their games are all potential negatives with respect to getting much over the .500 mark until the usual late season push. Add to that a shortened to a nonexistant preseason with likely not much training camp and no time to practice during a shortened and truncated season where there would probably be 4 or 5 games every single week for the entire season, the new coaching staff will have had little to no time to adjust to each other or the players and their tendencies.

        I am leaning toward the Pacers being over .500, but not by much, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them end up slightly below .500 depending on how big of a splash they are able to make in free agency and trading once the lockout ends.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Over/Under: Central Division

          I say push but its premature to talk about expectations we don't even have a team yet.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Over/Under: Central Division

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            I say push but its premature to talk about expectations we don't even have a team yet.
            There is where my mind is at. We have money to spend, but can't. Pretty much, Indiana's future success is riding on this FA class, and it could make or break our season. Then again (people keep forgetting this), Indiana did assemble one h*ll of a coaching staff this offseason. That alone should push us into 40+ win team.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Over/Under: Central Division

              I'd say this is a 41-41 AT LEAST.

              No way I see us finishing below that. With Frank as full time head coach along with his great staff and more importantly this core group working their tails off this offseason; knowing their strengths and weaknesses to improve themselves and us. We all have 2 new combo guards to really help us. George and an improved Lance.

              I think the best news of all about this team during the offseason was just this week when they all got together for a workout.

              So what I think the final record will be as this core stands right now under this coaching staff is 44-38 (excluding missed games and who else we'll bring in with our cap space - and that's a whole different story right there).
              Last edited by Scot Pollard; 09-24-2011, 11:07 AM.
              In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Over/Under: Central Division

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                There is where my mind is at. We have money to spend, but can't. Pretty much, Indiana's future success is riding on this FA class, and it could make or break our season. Then again (people keep forgetting this), Indiana did assemble one h*ll of a coaching staff this offseason. That alone should push us into 40+ win team.
                Cleveland had a hell of a coaching staff last year. Coaching cant win you games in the NBA IMO but it can lose you games you could of won. In the NBA the players win games while in college good coaching and a good coach can win you games IMO.

                The NBA is a players league the coach just has to be able to manage people. The best coaches are normal the ones who handle there players the best.



                and again we cant be assured we will get good free agents. When we haven't sign any good free agents in the past that shows we aren't attractive to a top level player. (There wont even be a top level player on the FA market in 2011.)
                Last edited by pacer4ever; 09-24-2011, 12:47 PM.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Over/Under: Central Division

                  Over.

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X