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

Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

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

  • #16
    Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I am curious to know what you see as competing for a championship. What threes years did the pacers compete for one? what do you have to do to be in the classification as competing for a championship
    I stated above one possible example of how the Pacers could remain almost as is and compete for a championship.

    I'm sure my definition of "competing" would differ with many people on this board. Obviously that's not the type of the thing that everyone can agree on. But I think we can all agree that we'll know it when we see it.

    97-98 was the year I'd say the Pacers were the closest to a championship. They had offensive fire power. They could go to an all defensive lineup that could shut down anyone. They had rebounders, scorers, defenders. They were stacked really. They didn't win but I think very few historians would say they didn't have a shot at a title.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

      Everyone is entitled to opinions, I just don't agree with most of them.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

        I agree with you mattie, this team is likely not a championship contender. However, I don't think the activity of the front office (or lack thereof) is to blame. Becoming a true contender in this league is very difficult to do, especially in a small/medium market and with the development of super-teams over the last half decade. Look at the current super teams: OKC, LAL, and MIA.

        OKC: The Thunder's rise to the top is the most interesting of the three, in my opinion. They're a small-market team (arguably smaller than Indiana), and Oklahoma City doesn't have the draw of say Los Angeles or Miami. How the Thunder became a great team was having great success through the draft. They were absolutely terrible for three years in a row, and thus drafted Durant, Harden, and Westbrook. Players like these don't come around every year, yet the Thunder snatched three of them. The Pacers' problem was they were only mediocre, not bad enough to get a great draft pick, but not good enough to make the playoffs.

        LAL: Let's face it, the main advantage the Lakers have is the draw of Los Angeles, and the market size. Oh yeah, and that one guy named Kobe Bryant, one of the best if not the best two guard in NBA history. No Kobe Bryant, no Dwight Howard or Steve Nash. The combination of the Black Mamba and the city of L.A. make the Lakers very hard to pass up if you're a big-time free agent. The city of Indianapolis doesn't have the draw of Los Angeles, or one of the best players in NBA history that makes free agents say, "I want to play with him". City markets in the NBA matter more than in any other sport.

        MIA: How the Heat and Lakers became super-teams is almost identical. Miami definitely has the draw to bring in big-name players. A huge factor that has been overlooked, though, is the friendship that Lebron and Dwayne formed before King James made "The Decision". This was a huge factor in making Lebron come to Miami. One of the problems with the Pacers is that our players don't have the experience of playing on Team USA and forming friendships with other NBA superstars.

        You can't really blame our front office for a lack of effort. You mention we didn't even make an effort to usher in Deron Williams. I'm almost certain we did, it just wasn't on the front page of ESPN. Our front office wants us to win a championship just as much as everyone here on PD.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Last year was Boston's 5th year with Rondo, KG, Allen, Pierce at their core. I know exception to the rule but it does happen.
          How many consecutive years did Atlanta trot out Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford? Since 2007 when Horford entered the league right?

          It is uncommon but certainly not unprecedented and does seem to be the path we're heading towards.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

            Originally posted by adamscb View Post
            I agree with you mattie, this team is likely not a championship contender. However, I don't think the activity of the front office (or lack thereof) is to blame. Becoming a true contender in this league is very difficult to do, especially in a small/medium market and with the development of super-teams over the last half decade. Look at the current super teams: OKC, LAL, and MIA.

            OKC: The Thunder's rise to the top is the most interesting of the three, in my opinion. They're a small-market team (arguably smaller than Indiana), and Oklahoma City doesn't have the draw of say Los Angeles or Miami. How the Thunder became a great team was having great success through the draft. They were absolutely terrible for three years in a row, and thus drafted Durant, Harden, and Westbrook. Players like these don't come around every year, yet the Thunder snatched three of them. The Pacers' problem was they were only mediocre, not bad enough to get a great draft pick, but not good enough to make the playoffs.

            LAL: Let's face it, the main advantage the Lakers have is the draw of Los Angeles, and the market size. Oh yeah, and that one guy named Kobe Bryant, one of the best if not the best two guard in NBA history. No Kobe Bryant, no Dwight Howard or Steve Nash. The combination of the Black Mamba and the city of L.A. make the Lakers very hard to pass up if you're a big-time free agent. The city of Indianapolis doesn't have the draw of Los Angeles, or one of the best players in NBA history that makes free agents say, "I want to play with him". City markets in the NBA matter more than in any other sport.

            MIA: How the Heat and Lakers became super-teams is almost identical. Miami definitely has the draw to bring in big-name players. A huge factor that has been overlooked, though, is the friendship that Lebron and Dwayne formed before King James made "The Decision". This was a huge factor in making Lebron come to Miami. One of the problems with the Pacers is that our players don't have the experience of playing on Team USA and forming friendships with other NBA superstars.

            You can't really blame our front office for a lack of effort. You mention we didn't even make an effort to usher in Deron Williams. I'm almost certain we did, it just wasn't on the front page of ESPN. Our front office wants us to win a championship just as much as everyone here on PD.
            Great post. Not really disagreeing with you but I did want to express what my complaints are against the front office. I see a marked difference between Donnie and Bird. Bird clearly had a problem with the teams talent level.

            If Donnie came out tomorrow and said we have issues that need to be addressed at some point, I'd forget it once and for all. I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that our front office thinks the starting five going forward is good enough to beat Miami and that is just wrong.

            I know it is extremely difficult to field a true title contender. I just want that to be the goal is all. I think our front office believes that once Roy, Hill and Paul hit their peaks that will happen. I disagree. I don't think we'll be much better in three years than we are now. There isn't much room for this to peak is all.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

              Oh ye of little faith...optimism is a lifestyle, not just a mindset (). However, I can see your point very clearly. Alot of things have to go right for us to compete for a Championship. But, you never know. The right injury can propel a number of teams into Title contention. Synergy could come into play and trump star power. Maybe person growth of individual players/coaches can do it. There are a lot of variables to consider. Catching lightning in a bottle, although very difficult and therefore very unlikely, can happen and has happened in the past.
              Last edited by mildlysane; 08-16-2012, 09:24 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                By the way I don't buy for a second the Pacers can't make moves. They can. The hard part about making moves when your team isn't very good is you don't have assets. Well when your team is very good you of course do have assets, which means you don't necessarily have to gut your team to obtain a different player.

                Look at the Lakers. The Lakers essentially traded Bynum for Howard. Howard is a MUCH greater player than Bynum. But they got it done. And that's not an example of LA being LA. Howard didn't ask to go to LA. It was LA offering their asset until a deal was done, and frankly they offered the best deal out of everyone.

                There are assets on the Pacers that can be offered for various players around the league. A deal can be done. The answer can't be "well West isn't as good as so and so, they would never do that." Bynum wasn't as good as Howard but the trade was done wasn't it??

                West and Green? West and DJ? Add picks to either of those deals? You can land talent. I keep mentioning Atlanta because I think it's obvious. Atlanta has two players playing the same position and they're in rebuilding mode. They have to do something. We have a valuable 10m expiring contract, and we have picks that we can dump right and left considering any move we make *could* theoretically put us into title contention.

                A deal can be made.

                The Pacers should shoot to be a team like Memphis really. Memphis is no where near the favorites but they have a team that might be able to win. Even now. They have a PF that when healthy can seemingly dominate anyone. They have defense and rebounding at every other position. They certainly would like to make trades to make their team better, but seriously they *could* win it. (Funny, despite all that they still put Gay on the market)
                Last edited by mattie; 08-16-2012, 09:33 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.
                  So a team that lost in the first round is a championship contender, but the Pacers are not? I'm just trying to figure out how you define what a "contender" is, because there's something a little off with this.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    We have a valuable 10m expiring contract, and we have picks that we can dump right and left considering any move we make *could* theoretically put us into title contention.

                    A deal can be made.
                    Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
                    But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

                    I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.

                      Memphis? The same team that lost in the first round? I would not put them in the category as a team that could have won a championship.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So a team that lost in the first round is a championship contender, but the Pacers are not? I'm just trying to figure out how you define what a "contender" is, because there's something a little off with this.
                        Are you nitpicking my argument or do you really want to know? Obviously Chicago was a contender. Until last years MVP was injured. I shouldn't have to repeat that.

                        Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                        Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
                        But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

                        I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.
                        For the record, at the trade deadline I believe we will be second in the east. ****, if Wade has some nagging injury we could be number one in the east! That doesn't mean we have the talent to actually win though. As I've stated before, this team cannot protect the rim, it will not win the rebound battle, and they don't have the superstars to make up for our deficiencies rebounding and defending.

                        I don't think you necessarily judge a team on how many wins they have. I mean that's a huge part of it, but you can evaluate the talent on whether they're good enough to actually beat a great team in a playoff series. No matter what this teams record is come the trade deadline? It absolutely will not change what will happen when they play Miami in the playoffs. They'll lose.

                        So yes I'd make a trade at the deadline if you could land someone else. Boston did it remember? Didn't necessarily work but they had a plan and went with it. They didn't feel they were good enough to win so they said screw our record we're going to try to make a move that can raise our teams potential.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Memphis? The same team that lost in the first round? I would not put them in the category as a team that could have won a championship.
                          Why do I have to say anything? Did we forget their best players injury kept him playing on the bench 1 week before the playoffs?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            Are you nitpicking my argument or do you really want to know? Obviously Chicago was a contender. Until last years MVP was injured. I shouldn't have to repeat that.
                            Waht does Chicago have to do with you thinking that Memphis, who lost in the first round, is a title contender?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                              I have a couple quibbles with your best case scenarios.

                              For example, Hibbert. You mentioned he's average at offense at best as a best case scenario. I would contend that he is already well above average offensively. He was 55th in the NBA in points per game last year which is a little above average. And he's efficient with that scoring. He was tied for 20th in FG percentage (and there were several players who scored less than he did above him). He shoots a pretty good free throw percentage for a big man with 71 percent last year.

                              And from a scouting perspective on Hibbert, he draws double teams frequently. Teams have been known to gameplan against stopping Hibbert first. That sort of attention isn't garnered on players who are barely average on the offensive end.

                              And for a team thing, you mentioned the team's best case scenario is an average rebounding team. But they were 9th in the NBA in rebounding margin just last year (even better in total rebounds, but that was mostly influenced by the Pacers style). Certainly their best case scenario is at least the same and maybe even a little better than they did just last year. Even with the same starting 5, they certainly have room to improve the bench's rebounding capability.

                              So the Pacers in best case are a bottom of the top 5 offense, bottom of the top 5 defense, and top 10 rebounding sort of team. I think that's the other area on where we differ. I don't think a team necessarily has to have a specialized skill to win a title. In that scenario, as you said, some teams could break down the Pacers defense, others could defend the Pacers well, and others could outrebound them. But the Pacers would still be contenders in that scenario because it's rare for a team to be that well balanced, and so the Pacers would have advantages over each of those teams who have that one elite skill.

                              Now there still is the thorny question of how likely it is that the Pacers hit that ceiling. The Pacers could easily not be true title contenders over the next 5 years. But their ceiling IMO is true title contention. I don't think the Pacers as currently constructed could ever be considered hands down the best team in the league even if they hit their ceiling, but they definitely could be in the mix.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                                I have a couple quibbles with your best case scenarios.

                                For example, Hibbert. You mentioned he's average at offense at best as a best case scenario. I would contend that he is already well above average offensively. He was 55th in the NBA in points per game last year which is a little above average. And he's efficient with that scoring. He was tied for 20th in FG percentage (and there were several players who scored less than he did above him). He shoots a pretty good free throw percentage for a big man with 71 percent last year.

                                And from a scouting perspective on Hibbert, he draws double teams frequently. Teams have been known to gameplan against stopping Hibbert first. That sort of attention isn't garnered on players who are barely average on the offensive end.

                                And for a team thing, you mentioned the team's best case scenario is an average rebounding team. But they were 9th in the NBA in rebounding margin just last year (even better in total rebounds, but that was mostly influenced by the Pacers style). Certainly their best case scenario is at least the same and maybe even a little better than they did just last year. Even with the same starting 5, they certainly have room to improve the bench's rebounding capability.

                                So the Pacers in best case are a bottom of the top 5 offense, bottom of the top 5 defense, and top 10 rebounding sort of team. I think that's the other area on where we differ. I don't think a team necessarily has to have a specialized skill to win a title. In that scenario, as you said, some teams could break down the Pacers defense, others could defend the Pacers well, and others could outrebound them. But the Pacers would still be contenders in that scenario because it's rare for a team to be that well balanced, and so the Pacers would have advantages over each of those teams who have that one elite skill.

                                Now there still is the thorny question of how likely it is that the Pacers hit that ceiling. The Pacers could easily not be true title contenders over the next 5 years. But their ceiling IMO is true title contention. I don't think the Pacers as currently constructed could ever be considered hands down the best team in the league even if they hit their ceiling, but they definitely could be in the mix.
                                I can see that.

                                I guess as you said, I'm suggesting we need to have some sort of strength to rely on where as you're saying the Pacers strength in every area would make them be able to adapt to each opponent. Not sure I agree that would work, but I understand the reasoning.

                                Great post. Thanks.

                                Edit - That's a really great perspective and could explain why our office really has no intention of changing the starting five. The idea that a solid team from all angles could contend.

                                (I don't believe that'll work. I think a team like that just simply gets flat out beat. But I'm just trying to see it from a different angle)
                                Last edited by mattie; 08-16-2012, 10:07 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X