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

Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

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

  • #46
    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    I wouldn't go as far as to say that we can field a Team that can make the 2nd round of the Playoffs.....but more closer to a Team that can be a Playoff Bubble to 1st round Team ( but slightly leaning more towards the 1st round Playoff Team ).
    Note that by "consistently" I didn't mean "every year" and certainly not THIS year. However, I fully expect us to be a second round to ECF team again when Paul returns.

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Maybe you have but I certainly can't think of anyone who said that anything but a championship was mediocre?
    I certainly think the number of people claiming that the worst possible thing for this team would be to be a "permanent Hawks" is close - plenty of people were stating that getting to the second round year after year was mediocre if they never got any further. Why do I equate the two? I feel like from the second round to the conference finals and to the league finals you start getting into areas where the smallest thing (a player injured just enough to be a step slow, a bad pass, a decision not to dunk) can knock you out. Many of those teams are separated only by the slightest degree.

    Ultimately I think the point has been made that if you can't get over the hump you should blow up and rebuild sooner rather than later or at least make some kind of major move of top talent (heck, man, some degree of that was the root of so many of our arguments back in the RATS days about what Donnie was or was not willing to do). Since "blow it up" pretty much means "put yourself in the cellar", it's relevant.

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    As to your ECF criteria of year after year. In the last 20 years we have been to the ECF 8 times and the NBA finals once, so a total of 9 times in the top 4. Out of those 9 times 6 were from 94-00 now here is where it gets tricky. Do you consider Rik Smits to have been a vital part of that team? You know the guy who was the starting center, in an era superstar big men, for all 6 of those teams. Guess what, Rik Smits was chosen 2nd in his draft. So it's not like the Pacers have always built winners based on 15-20 draft picks.

    Even our current team which has had 2 of the 9 E.C.F. slots has been based on a player taken in the top 10, so it's not like we built the team around mid round draft picks either.
    I suppose that's fair enough, but my point would be that Rik was the result of legitimately struggling to get better and that PG was gotten while trying NOT to tank (and being castigated for it).

    (off topic but I went back to look at the draft where we got Rik. Wow, what an awful year that was.)

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    As to fans, we've been over this before but I'll go over it again. We've already seen the bottom, Satan's 3rd year here was the epicenter of it and honestly I don't think it would be any worse. The only thing I'll caveat that by saying is if the Pacers ever chose to do what Philly is doing then you would see tickets sales go lower, but short of that? No, we have a very strong core group of fans, we just have a very weak casual fan base and always will. There are to many other sports around here to jump onto for this market size. BTW, let's not pretend that Philly fans are flocking to see that dumpster fire either, that arena is a ghost town as it should be.
    Not pretending that at all. I would point out that there are a number of reasons all hitting at once that affected attendance during the JOB tenure, not just the losing. I'd venture to say that fielding a team year after year (which I think you HAVE to be willing to do if you are truly tanking for a franchise-changing player) would not only lead to worse attendance but would make it harder to get the attendance back unless we actually scored a Lebron-level player. Every year where we got someone that was NOT the "must-see" superstar, we'd be fighting to get anyone to believe things would be better. Heck, it took until last season to grow the attendance even with Vogel coaching PG AND Lance.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Haven't we seen the argument that anything other than a championship is mediocrity, though? I don't see too many people arguing that we need to tank to have a team that makes it to the ECF - we already HAVE a team that makes it to the ECF and has done so over and over since 1994. Even the "gap years" without getting a top-5 pick didn't keep it from coming back around.

      For my part, since we absolutely know that we can field a team that is in the 2nd round or better on a constant basis WITHOUT tanking, then doing the exact same thing by tanking doesn't make much sense. I think it is a lesser path because of the effects losing has on your team culture and fan base.
      Ok. It's time to pin this down. Would you rather be guaranteed to be a second round / ECF team for a decade....or be a cellar dweller for one year to pick a top 5 player and be a second round / ECF / Finals contender for a decade?

      I'm not saying that a top 5 pick will get you to the promised land. But I will say without one it will be more difficult to get to the promised land in the Paul George era. That's what we are talking about. 10 years or so if he stays in Indy.

      I've already seen dozens of playoff teams. It's been a good time. I think a small market team has to make certain sacrifices to move up the food chain. Even the Spurs picked Tim and the Admiral at #1.....

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Ok. It's time to pin this down. Would you rather be guaranteed to be a second round / ECF team for a decade....or be a cellar dweller for one year to pick a top 5 player and be a second round / ECF / Finals contender for a decade?

        I'm not saying that a top 5 pick will get you to the promised land. But I will say without one it will be more difficult to get to the promised land in the Paul George era. That's what we are talking about. 10 years or so if he stays in Indy.

        I've already seen dozens of playoff teams. It's been a good time. I think a small market team has to make certain sacrifices to move up the food chain. Even the Spurs picked Tim and the Admiral at #1.....
        If you can't guarantee that one year will yield a pick that takes you to the finals, what's the difference?

        Let's be clear - we're talking about deliberately not doing what is reasonably possible to win games. If you're snakebit and busting a$$ and losing, that's legit in my book.

        If all telling your fans "thanks for the money, we're losing on purpose" buys you is a chance at an unknown who might get you one more round ... I'll take trades and free agency for known quantities. I'd rather overpay for an FA than lose to draft someone who might not help at all.

        Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

          Oh - and the Spurs' two #1 picks are 2 more than the Pacers have had in their entire NBA history. And I am more confident that in 10 years we'll still be saying that than I am in the idea that bottoming out for a valuable pick will work.

          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

            I don't know about pointless I mean there's a point namely to see what we have as far as a team you aren't going to win a championship every year but you can at least know where you stand.

            Now I do think the Pacers would be better off with a draft pick but I like that they play hard so if they play hard and lose I won't be that upset over it its better to either be really bad or really good the worst thing you can do is be mediocre

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              If you can't guarantee that one year will yield a pick that takes you to the finals, what's the difference?

              Let's be clear - we're talking about deliberately not doing what is reasonably possible to win games. If you're snakebit and busting a$$ and losing, that's legit in my book.

              If all telling your fans "thanks for the money, we're losing on purpose" buys you is a chance at an unknown who might get you one more round ... I'll take trades and free agency for known quantities. I'd rather overpay for an FA than lose to draft someone who might not help at all.

              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
              There is never going to be a guarantee. It's more like a 2% chance vs. a 20% chance. I think I like the latter.

              Paul George was picked the summer after the worst Pacer record since 1988-89. Reggie, the best NBA Pacer, was also a fairly high pick and the only Pacer to lead this team to the finals. We never got there with JO or Granger who was a #17 pick...and no, neither one was as good as Reggie Miller at the highest elevations of the game.

              As for the Pacers never getting a #1 pick, that's probably part of our issue. We could use one.

              BTW, I am not advocating tanking necessarily because it doesn't sit that well with me either. But I can adapt to it with a top 5 pick and Paul George returning.
              Last edited by BlueNGold; 11-18-2014, 09:05 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                One of the problems with this argument is that people use different criteria to decide what is or is not success. As an example the people who are adamant about not tanking only consider tanking to have worked if you win a title, yet they are perfectly happy with their method if their team is competitive.

                But what about a team that tanks and has several years of being an elite team/contender status? Do they give that team credit for their tanking job or is only a title the answer?
                But that is the whole argument for tanking. That taking a step back for 2-3 years gives you a chance to leapfrog those teams that try to build the slow, steady way. That tanking gives you a better chance for championships than the "mediocrity treadmill".

                The reward for tanking HAS to be very good, because inflicting tanking on your fanbase is pretty damaging. No one tanks so that they can be the next Atlanta Hawks. It's already been shown plenty of times that Hawk-level teams can be built without tanking.

                Btw, maybe some definitions are in order. For me, tanking means a team deliberately targeting a top 4 pick. To do that, you have to put yourself in the running for worst record in the league. Not just merely bad, but atrocious. Drafting #9 or #10 usually wouldn't be considered tanking in my book - that's where teams draft when they just miss the playoffs (in the East for the last few years anyway).

                FWIW, I consider OKC to be a tanking success - and maybe the ONLY tanking success story, depending on whether you feel the Spurs tanked or not (I think not, but there's an argument that perhaps they held players out longer than necessary). Lots of other teams have tried and failed though.
                Last edited by wintermute; 11-18-2014, 09:19 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  But that is the whole argument for tanking. That taking a step back for 2-3 years gives you a chance to leapfrog those teams that try to build the slow, steady way. That tanking gives you a better chance for championships than the "mediocrity treadmill".

                  The reward for tanking HAS to be very good, because inflicting tanking on your fanbase is pretty damaging. No one tanks so that they can be the next Atlanta Hawks. It's already been shown plenty of times that Hawk-level teams can be built without tanking.

                  Btw, maybe some definitions are in order. For me, tanking means a team deliberately targeting a top 4 pick. To do that, you have to put yourself in the running for worst record in the league. Not just merely bad, but atrocious. Drafting #9 or #10 usually wouldn't be considered tanking in my book - that's where teams draft when they just miss the playoffs (in the East for the last few years anyway).

                  FWIW, I consider OKC to be a tanking success - and maybe the ONLY tanking success story, depending on whether you feel the Spurs tanked or not (I think not, but there's an argument that perhaps they held players out longer than necessary). Lots of other teams have tried and failed though.
                  This in bold will not happen with Paul George slated to return. People already expect the team to lose when the face of the franchise is out. They will be back and many won't even be leaving. I think this concern is incredibly overblown given the agony of living through the Jim O'Brien years. Just chill is my advice.

                  ...oh and the idea that .390 is going to attract casual fans but .250 isn't is a farce. Some fans aren't going to leave particularly with Paul George simmering on the back burner.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    But that is the whole argument for tanking. That taking a step back for 2-3 years gives you a chance to leapfrog those teams that try to build the slow, steady way. That tanking gives you a better chance for championships than the "mediocrity treadmill".

                    The reward for tanking HAS to be very good, because inflicting tanking on your fanbase is pretty damaging. No one tanks so that they can be the next Atlanta Hawks. It's already been shown plenty of times that Hawk-level teams can be built without tanking.

                    Btw, maybe some definitions are in order. For me, tanking means a team deliberately targeting a top 4 pick. To do that, you have to put yourself in the running for worst record in the league. Not just merely bad, but atrocious. Drafting #9 or #10 usually wouldn't be considered tanking in my book - that's where teams draft when they just miss the playoffs.

                    FWIW, I consider OKC to be a tanking success - and maybe the ONLY tanking success story, depending on whether you feel the Spurs tanked or not (I think not, but there's an argument that perhaps they held players out longer than necessary). Lots of other teams have tried and failed though.
                    Really? You don't think the Cavs going from 17 win in 02/03 to 35 wins in 03-04 and then 45 being the lowest win total for the next 6 years with 4 E.C. finals visits and one championship round visit wasn't also successful?

                    Sure every team and every fan wants to jump to the title round, but do you consider it a failure if the tanking doesn't not result in a title? Yet you don't have the same requirement for building "the right way"?

                    The Atlanta Hawks are a horrible example for any team using any guideline for any reason. They suck at tanking and they suck at building through the draft and free agency. Overall their franchise just sucks, so I wouldn't use them as an example of anything myself.


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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Really? You don't think the Cavs going from 17 win in 02/03 to 35 wins in 03-04 and then 45 being the lowest win total for the next 6 years with 4 E.C. finals visits and one championship round visit wasn't also successful?
                      You're right, I forgot about that. Thanks. Are there others?

                      IMO tanking is a success if and only if it lands you one of these players: TD, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, and I suppose Durant is joining this list. Maybe I missed a few more. But the point is that it's a very short list.

                      What's so horrible about the Hawks? They're a moderately successful team which is a useful benchmark.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        You're right, I forgot about that. Thanks. Are there others?

                        IMO tanking is a success if and only if it lands you one of these players: TD, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, and I suppose Durant is joining this list. Maybe I missed a few more. But the point is that it's a very short list.

                        What's so horrible about the Hawks? They're a moderately successful team which is a useful benchmark.
                        Would you tank for a 30% chance at one of those players...with the understanding that Paul George is returning? That's where we are at. The odds are probably longer than that. But the odds of winning a championship without taking risks are even longer.

                        ...and you would think people would have learned this lesson from the Colts. Peyton and Andrew were both #1 picks.......

                        ...and the Colts fanbase? Are you kidding me?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          There is never going to be a guarantee. It's more like a 2% chance vs. a 20% chance. I think I like the latter.

                          Paul George was picked the summer after the worst Pacer record since 1988-89. Reggie, the best NBA Pacer, was also a fairly high pick and the only Pacer to lead this team to the finals. We never got there with JO or Granger who was a #17 pick...and no, neither one was as good as Reggie Miller at the highest elevations of the game.

                          As for the Pacers never getting a #1 pick, that's probably part of our issue. We could use one.

                          BTW, I am not advocating tanking necessarily because it doesn't sit that well with me either. But I can adapt to it with a top 5 pick and Paul George returning.
                          Unless one can tell us right now that there will be clear cut tiers in the draft where the difference between at Top 5 pick is going to be significantly better than the next tier of Players in the 6th to 12th spot.....then it's hard to tell whether deciding to Tank for a top 5 pick is any better than making a run for the Playoffs and falling short while getting a lower pick in the lottery.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                            IMO, free agents want to go to a team with an upside, if possible. Tanking would seem to scare off potential FA talent. In my understanding, West signed here because he saw potential.
                            Do...or do not. There is no try - Snagglepuss

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                              FWIW, I don't think there's a right away or a wrong way. But people are suggesting that tanking is the only way (or at least the best way) to compete for a championship.

                              Can a team without a superstar drafted in the top 3 win a championship? Yes, it can (Mavs, Celtics, Pistons). It's just that chances are low.

                              Can a team draft a superstar by deliberate tanking? Yes it can (OKC, Cavs in 2003). It's just that chances are low.

                              When comparing 2 low probability events, does it matter that one path gives you a perhaps 2% chance vs the other way giving you maybe a 1% chance? I would say, regardless of which path you think is more probable, that in real life the difference is quite negligible.

                              So it comes down to personal preference, and I say I prefer the non-tanking way, thank you very much.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                FWIW, I don't think there's a right away or a wrong way. But people are suggesting that tanking is the only way (or at least the best way) to compete for a championship.

                                Can a team without a superstar drafted in the top 3 win a championship? Yes, it can (Mavs, Celtics, Pistons). It's just that chances are low.

                                Can a team draft a superstar by deliberate tanking? Yes it can (OKC, Cavs in 2003). It's just that chances are low.

                                When comparing 2 low probability events, does it matter that one path gives you a perhaps 2% chance vs the other way giving you maybe a 1% chance? I would say, regardless of which path you think is more probable, that in real life the difference is quite negligible.

                                So it comes down to personal preference, and I say I prefer the non-tanking way, thank you very much.
                                You hear that sound?

                                It was wintermute dropping the mic to end this thread.

                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X