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

Could there be a Pacers way of building...

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

  • Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I’m not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

    No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

    Whether a lot of us old timers like it or not the absolute top model for building an NBA franchise now is to tank and the Oklahoma City Thunder are always held as the bright and shining example of dumping salary, bottoming out & being rewarded with high draft picks who turn out to be absolute blue chip players who will then lead your team from the bottom to the top and will do so for a couple of years until you need to dump them and start over again. BTW this is not just fans or even sports writers who like to stir up things on twitter who think this way. I have heard several respected NBA people both former coaches and players who have been on NBA saying that this is the model to use.

    What happens if we prove that wrong? I’m not saying we will and perhaps I’m too high after so many home victories that I’m losing perspective but humor me.

    The Pacers never tanked, at least not on purpose. Satan did but in his mind he was trying to win and when he finally gave in to not trying to win every game they actually started to win because they got away from his horrible….Ok, we all know where I’m going here so let’s not make this about him.

    Think about this our highest draft pick was # 10, now it can be argued that he is our best player so there is logic in still saying the higher the pick the better the chance of getting a good player. But again, he was # 10 not # 1 or even # 5.

    When Danny comes back both he & Roy were drafted at #17. Right now our starting shooting guard is a second round pick and I wouldn’t trade him for most 1st round picks from his draft.

    Our first big off of the bench was selected at 13. Our current first wing off of the bench was this year’s 2nd round draft pick.

    We parlayed one first round draft pick into our starting point guard & in a rare occurrence this trade actually benefitted both teams.

    We traded away a surplus point guard who probably was never going to start here again and was probably not going to be happy being a backup long term for our back up center.

    We did shed salary mostly by just letting it expire and with our available money we did make a splash in the free agent market and signed a player coming off of injury to fill a need, however although he was at one point an all star prior to here he was never considered a marquee player because he was just a solid fundamental player. In other words we didn’t use our free agent money to sign the big marquee sexy player that everyone wanted us to sign (not that there was one available but I remember many people saying just save the money for the next season).

    Of course that non-sexy fundamental signing only turned out to be both the biggest bargain in Pacers history is quite honestly is the best free agent signing in NBA Pacers history. I just can’t bring myself to say most important because Byron Scott changed our entire culture the day he arrived here. But I’ll say this we get to the E.C. finals or beyond & I’ll probably change my tune about that as well.

    Yea I know this is all pretty premature but still look at where we are. Right now we are the talk of the league and not just because we are winning. We are winning and we are looking good doing it, we are entertaining to watch (at least according to Chris Webber & Steve Smith on NBA tv) and most importantly other than West and soon to be Danny none of our key players are on the wrong side of 30. To put it differently unless something goes terribly wrong we have a few years to be really competitive and if George & Stephenson keep growing then that window could be quite large.

    But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

    Or will it always be “we must tank to succeed”?


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Hire JOB. Extend JOB. Fire JOB. 'ship.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

      I don't know.

      I can tell you I'm convinced without a doubt that the Pacers are going to make the Finals though. I don't think the Heat will be able to beat them once Grangers back. We have the better defense. We also have a starting five that has been killing teams scoring the ball. They're getting better every day as Hill learns point, PG continues to grow as a scorer, Lance is going to be a killer 6th man, and West is simply not the same guy he was last year.

      Put Battier on him in the playoffs and West is going to make them regret it.

      I've come full circle. The Pacers are a powerhouse. We won't see it yet until Grangers back. But yeah. Grangers already playing in full speed practices. He's injury isn't an ACL. It's a discomfort deal, and presumably since he's practicing the pain is gone. (otherwise he wouldn't practice). He has an old man game anyway. How can it suffer?

      The Pacers are going to start 4 allstars in the playoffs. No other team can say that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

        I don't have a lot of time to really get into it, but I really think the new CBA is, eventually, going to drastically change the way teams are constructed and the amount of parity. It's also going to lead to shorter contracts and a lot more player movement, which'll be a shame and I think may hurt some fan interest. Next CBA eliminate max deals entirely and let true superstars make what they deserve and we got a whole new league that's much better. Lebron said as much, and hate the guy all you want, he's right. Lebron's thoughts on labor negotiations of late have genuinely impressed me relative to the seeming non-interest his peers seem to have for the most part. He's done a great job learning the business of the sport.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I’m not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

          No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

          Whether a lot of us old timers like it or not the absolute top model for building an NBA franchise now is to tank and the Oklahoma City Thunder are always held as the bright and shining example of dumping salary, bottoming out & being rewarded with high draft picks who turn out to be absolute blue chip players who will then lead your team from the bottom to the top and will do so for a couple of years until you need to dump them and start over again. BTW this is not just fans or even sports writers who like to stir up things on twitter who think this way. I have heard several respected NBA people both former coaches and players who have been on NBA saying that this is the model to use.

          What happens if we prove that wrong? I’m not saying we will and perhaps I’m too high after so many home victories that I’m losing perspective but humor me.

          The Pacers never tanked, at least not on purpose. Satan did but in his mind he was trying to win and when he finally gave in to not trying to win every game they actually started to win because they got away from his horrible….Ok, we all know where I’m going here so let’s not make this about him.

          Think about this our highest draft pick was # 10, now it can be argued that he is our best player so there is logic in still saying the higher the pick the better the chance of getting a good player. But again, he was # 10 not # 1 or even # 5.

          When Danny comes back both he & Roy were drafted at #17. Right now our starting shooting guard is a second round pick and I wouldn’t trade him for most 1st round picks from his draft.

          Our first big off of the bench was selected at 13. Our current first wing off of the bench was this year’s 2nd round draft pick.

          We parlayed one first round draft pick into our starting point guard & in a rare occurrence this trade actually benefitted both teams.

          We traded away a surplus point guard who probably was never going to start here again and was probably not going to be happy being a backup long term for our back up center.

          We did shed salary mostly by just letting it expire and with our available money we did make a splash in the free agent market and signed a player coming off of injury to fill a need, however although he was at one point an all star prior to here he was never considered a marquee player because he was just a solid fundamental player. In other words we didn’t use our free agent money to sign the big marquee sexy player that everyone wanted us to sign (not that there was one available but I remember many people saying just save the money for the next season).

          Of course that non-sexy fundamental signing only turned out to be both the biggest bargain in Pacers history is quite honestly is the best free agent signing in NBA Pacers history. I just can’t bring myself to say most important because Byron Scott changed our entire culture the day he arrived here. But I’ll say this we get to the E.C. finals or beyond & I’ll probably change my tune about that as well.

          Yea I know this is all pretty premature but still look at where we are. Right now we are the talk of the league and not just because we are winning. We are winning and we are looking good doing it, we are entertaining to watch (at least according to Chris Webber & Steve Smith on NBA tv) and most importantly other than West and soon to be Danny none of our key players are on the wrong side of 30. To put it differently unless something goes terribly wrong we have a few years to be really competitive and if George & Stephenson keep growing then that window could be quite large.

          But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

          Or will it always be “we must tank to succeed”?
          The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

          In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

          What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
          Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 04:48 AM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

            In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

            What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
            You haven't perused our trade board in awhile have you? Obviously NBA people understand that this is not easy to duplicate but you would be surprised by the amount of sports writer (even the ones who aren't out to just type words) that think that this is the only way for markets outside L.A. & N.Y. to compete.

            I was going to agree with you about the Pistons until I stopped to think about it. How many of those players were actually drafted by the Pistons?

            Wallace (both of them) came via trade as did Rip Hamilton, was Billups a free agent. Prince was drafted by Detroit. As to the bench I am pretty sure Mike James was part of the Rasheed trade but I'm not sure. I don't remember how Corliss Williamson got there but I know he wasn't drafted by the Pistons. Did you guys draft Okur?

            No, I really don't see that much similarity to the way that we each were built other than the philosophy that there is no true superstar. Now that I can see. But building the team we both have taken different paths & if its any consolation to you, until proven differently your guys version is better.

            I know you can't be talking about the 80's Pistons because Zeke was drafted @ # 2


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

              In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

              What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
              Tanking will always be the #1 option for the majority of the teams trying to build that are also in the small market. Teams will always bank on young players that have a cheaper contract yet have a really nice potential of ending up an all-star, or maybe a superstar. It may not always hit but it has a proven track record of success in recent history, from Duncan (SA) to LeBron (CLE) all the way to Durant (OKC). The Pacers case will always be a special case simply because it's not that easy to get above average to decent players in the draft within the mid teens and mid-2nd round consecutively. A team can get get lucky in 1 draft getting a potential star in picks 10-20, but on the next 3 draft the other mid picks are D-league level. The only team that has been that good and lucky at the same time in building a great team through non-lottery picks is San Antonio (well, having a Tim Duncan helps in the overall team performance).

              As for the Pistons, I agree that they were built without a legitimate superstar similar to Pacers but they are different in terms of how their elite level team was formed. Every player on that starting 5 was obtained through solid trades/free agent signings except for Prince. On the other hand, only Hill and West were non-Pacer draftees formed through trades and the majority were Pacers-drafted.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                You haven't perused our trade board in awhile have you? Obviously NBA people understand that this is not easy to duplicate but you would be surprised by the amount of sports writer (even the ones who aren't out to just type words) that think that this is the only way for markets outside L.A. & N.Y. to compete.

                I was going to agree with you about the Pistons until I stopped to think about it. How many of those players were actually drafted by the Pistons?

                Wallace (both of them) came via trade as did Rip Hamilton, was Billups a free agent. Prince was drafted by Detroit. As to the bench I am pretty sure Mike James was part of the Rasheed trade but I'm not sure. I don't remember how Corliss Williamson got there but I know he wasn't drafted by the Pistons. Did you guys draft Okur?

                No, I really don't see that much similarity to the way that we each were built other than the philosophy that there is no true superstar. Now that I can see. But building the team we both have taken different paths & if its any consolation to you, until proven differently your guys version is better.

                I know you can't be talking about the 80's Pistons because Zeke was drafted @ # 2
                I would also add that what the Pistons pulled off was not sustainable. They made great trades and that is just not a formula for consistent long term success IMO. Sure they were good for 5 or so years, but that was about it. Not taking away anything from them, just that they did not draft those players like you pointed out and the deals they made were more of a high risk, high reward, and they paid off, but to think they could makes trades like that that work out that well consistently is unlikely.

                I feel that the Pacer's system is more sustainable. Every year we find talent in the later rounds or with savvy trades. We don't make blockbuster deals, we just make smart little moves. We know how to grow talent and find it on the cheap. That is sustainable and I think we have a higher ceiling and a better offense than that Pistons team. We don't play that ugly of basketball. The Pacers are exciting to watch and PG is going to be a legit superstar. The Pistons never had that and at this point I am getting sick of the comparison because the roots of the teams and the actual teams themselves are nothing alike other than the Pacers have had one of the better defenses in history this year. And as many have pointed out, you should not compare the Pacers to the best defense in history until their numbers are at least comparable.

                We are a more likeable team than those Pistons teams. We have a real chance for something special. If we can win it all this year we could start adding the bandwagon fans we all so despise. But let's face it those bandwagon fans buy tickets and watch games. I think the Pacers in the finals would garner more attention than those old Pistons teams ever would. We are so much more enjoyable to watch. The casual bandwagon fan can really get behind this team if they keep playing like they are at home and can extend that to the road. The Pistons were boring and were a turnoff to the bandwagonners, even though they played fundamentally great basketball.

                So hopefully other teams don't copy what we are doing. But ultimately they will if we win a championship. But still they may not because not one other team I can think of has become a good team the way that the Pacers have. Literally every other good team has high draft picks. That may be the real story here. Is there any other team at all that is a true playoff threat that doesn't have a higher pick than 10 on their team?
                Last edited by Midcoasted; 02-06-2013, 06:24 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                  okay, back up the crazy train...

                  Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                  I would also add that what the Pistons pulled off was not sustainable. They made great trades and that is just not a formula for consistent long term success IMO. Sure they were good for 5 or so years, but that was about it.
                  that was about it?

                  We had a 6-year run that included a championship, two straight conference titles, six 50+win seasons, and five division titles.

                  You don't call that "sustaining?"

                  You do realize only a handful of NBA teams have ever surpassed that level of excellence, right?

                  Not taking away anything from them, just that they did not draft those players like you pointed out and the deals they made were more of a high risk, high reward, and they paid off, but to think they could makes trades like that that work out that well consistently is unlikely.
                  uh....the draft/trade/FA ratio is roughly the same for both teams. The Pistons drafted Prince and Okur just like the Pacers drafted George and Stephenson. Moving on....

                  That is sustainable and I think we have a higher ceiling and a better offense than that Pistons team. We don't play that ugly of basketball. The Pacers are exciting to watch and PG is going to be a legit superstar. The Pistons never had that and at this point I am getting sick of the comparison because the roots of the teams and the actual teams themselves are nothing alike other than the Pacers have had one of the better defenses in history this year. And as many have pointed out, you should not compare the Pacers to the best defense in history until their numbers are at least comparable.
                  okay...reality check...

                  First off, the Pacers do play ugly basketball, by NBA standards. There is no pretty way to be 29th in scoring and 2nd in scoring defense. The masses are never going to applaud grind-it-out games. The one guy that commented on loving the Pacers' defensive style of play tonight was Chris Webber, who grew up-guess what-a Pistons fan.

                  And yes, I know their offense has been trending upward lately, but winning games 110-100 has never been their strategy.



                  We are a more likeable team than those Pistons teams.
                  No...you're really not. Nobody is talking about the Pacers outside of Indiana. Unless Paul Goerge becomes the next Kevin Durant/Tim Duncan type superstar, they never will. And George is simply not that kind of player. I'm not saying he will never be a superstar, but he's not as flashy as Durant or Kobe, and will never be a multiple-time MVP like Duncan. He's a star because he's a defensive stopper in addition to a pretty good scorer, and ESPN doesn't love to feature guys like that.

                  Unless you mean to say that the Pistons were bad guys and universally resented in contrast to the Pacers' much more likeable bunch of upstanding citizens, in which case...you're still wrong, in both cases. Outside of Indiana, at least.

                  I think the Pacers in the finals would garner more attention than those old Pistons teams ever would.
                  ...the 2004 finals was the most watched series of the decade...

                  Now, you could counter by saying nobody cared about Pistons/Spurs, in which case...you'd be right. Of course, by the same token, there was mass panic over the possibility of Pacers/Spurs in 1999 and Pacers/Blazers in 2000, and that Pacers team was actually an offensive juggernaut.

                  We are so much more enjoyable to watch.
                  ...you win games by making the other team miss bad shots and hit the floor...so, no. I understand that they are so much more enjoyable to watch from your perspective, but try to take off the Pacer fan hat and take a step back for a second.

                  From an outsider's perspective, let me get you prepared for the next 5-6 years:

                  1. Fans of big markets are not going to like you.
                  2. Fans of the teams you eliminate are not going to like you.
                  3. Fans of teams that value offense over defense are going to HATE you.
                  4. Unless Paul George about doubles his scoring output to Kobe/TMac/Durant levels, he's never going to be a national media darling. Missed shots aren't sexy.

                  When I said you can't compare this Pacers team to the 2004 Pistons, I said that because they hadn't accomplished anything yet. They are absolutely attempting to emulate them, however, albeit in a league that plays at a faster tempo. If they win a championship this way, I'd accept the comparison. Heck, I'd welcome it.

                  You're not going to accept this, but the reality is this: The Pacers play in Indiana. The Pacers play a decided physical defense-first philosophy. Neither of those things will endear them nationally. Heck, it's not exactly endearing them locally either. The Pacers haven't been a major draw in Indianapolis since the Bird/Reggie days of free flowing offense and three point shooters at every position.

                  I get that you're riding the Pacers high right now, and you can't see how the Pacers won't become the NBA's next great dynasty and loved by all...but that's just not going to happen. The hierarchy doesn't like being disturbed. You're going to knock much bigger names than Paul George out of the playoffs, and casual fans will get annoyed by it (unless it's Miami).

                  God forbid you keep Carmelo or Rose out of the finals....the national media will be borderline-offended in the "why am I stuck in Indianapolis covering the NBA finals when I could be spending a week in New York/Chicago" sense.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 08:24 AM.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                    Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
                    As for the Pistons, I agree that they were built without a legitimate superstar similar to Pacers but they are different in terms of how their elite level team was formed. Every player on that starting 5 was obtained through solid trades/free agent signings except for Prince. On the other hand, only Hill and West were non-Pacer draftees formed through trades and the majority were Pacers-drafted.
                    Hibbert was a obtained via trade on draft night. Brilliant deal, but the Pacers were not taking him 11th.

                    In fact, Hibbert wasn't even the highest draft pick they obtained in that deal.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 07:44 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                      To me there are three strategys in play for how an NBA team goes about the process and it can depend greatly on if they are a big market or small market.

                      The first (big market) strategy is to set up a salary "dump" cycle that allows the team to target the Lebron's, Melo's etc. when they become available. Ride the wave as long as productivity & injuries allow then do it again. Basically leverage the big market financials and game the Stern system.

                      The second stategy which can be in play for both markets is to take advantage of a down period (tanking could be involved) and maximize opportunities with a couple years of high draft picks. Even if a franchise's scouting department is very good there is still a great deal of luck involved with draft position & player injuries. Just look at the draft history of the Trail Blazers & Timberwolves for instance.

                      The third stategy in my mind is long-term team building which is almost exclusively a small market approach. Draft smart, trade well, spend for value only in free agency, lock up your good players long-term and keep the core together. Lots of teams have done this pretty well. Pacers & Jazz in the 90's. Pistons this decade and if you want to win four titles be the Spurs and do a great job combining both 2 & 3 for fifteen plus years.

                      I'm hopeful the new CBA will devalue the first strategy and do a better job rewarding the third example. Not sure it will work out that way but it would be great for the NBA in my opinion if there was a paradigm shift similar to what we are seeing in the NCAA where "mid-major" team builders can successfully compete for championships with the big dollar "one & done" programs.

                      Edit: I don't think the current Pacers team is doing anything funadmentally different than it did in the 90's other than we could likely see a key piece like DG moved early because of luxary tax implications.
                      Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 02-06-2013, 08:22 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        ILebron's thoughts on labor negotiations of late have genuinely impressed me relative to the seeming non-interest his peers seem to have for the most part. He's done a great job learning the business of the sport.
                        I'd like to know more about this.

                        He's done a couple of bonehead things, but other than that, I have to say, he may be one of the most talented human beings (non just including basketball) on the planet.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          I'd like to know more about this.

                          He's done a couple of bonehead things, but other than that, I have to say, he may be one of the most talented human beings (non just including basketball) on the planet.
                          Nothing really earth shattering. He just said what we already know: he's massively underpaid for what he contributes on the floor, and he will never get aid what he's worth under the current CBA.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Right now we are the talk of the league ... We are winning and we are looking good doing it
                            Earlier in the season when Vogel's head was being called for on a platter by some, I said let's wait until the All-Star break.

                            I guess Frank figured it out.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                              I think I am giving up on trying for the Pacers to be recognized. Who cares if fanboys like us?

                              I actually agree with KStat that we are similar in liking by the common fan. The only way we can supersede the Pistons in being liked is if we dominate the Heat.

                              The pistons were not built like us. And they had the benefit of having Larry Brown as their coach. Taking other teams misfits and getting success in the weakest era of the Eastern Conference.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X