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

  • #16
    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

    I get tired of this topic.

    But to answer the specific question. Of course it is not pointless. How many teams go from 20 wins to a championship. You have to build a team, get to .500, learn what works, get the right coach, tweek the roster every year and try and try again.

    I wonder why this is even a topic

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      In all fairness this is absolutely the wrong forum to ask this question. By far and away our membership hates the idea of tanking and therefor you are not going to get an accurate representation of whether or not it is beneficial.

      Tanking is a very common and widely respected way of advancing a team outside of the confines of the Pacers Digest. I listen to NBA radio all of the time and I can tell you without fail the majority of the paid columnist working for major publications either endorse it or at the very least acknowledge it as a legitimate way of improving your club. To a man every one of the NBA on TNT guys have endorsed the idea of not being mediocre and either going for it all or dropping back.

      BTW, I'm as guilty as the rest of you are. I don't believe in the idea of tanking as a guaranteed way of improving the club, however I freely admit that around the NBA it is an accepted and even respected policy.

      But to play devils advocate everybody wants to point out all of the teams who have failed with the tanking but none of us want to point out the teams who have refused to do it and have toiled away in mid level hell for years. The Knicks are the most prominent of these teams and even did it again this year by bringing back Melo at a max deal when many people argued they should have cut ties, cut contracts and attempted to rebuild through the draft and future free agents.

      To me there is no one way to build a title contender, if there was everybody would do it.
      That's a different question. Some people like the idea of tanking but can see the worth in playing to won as much as you can. So these people, though they support tanking, would agree that its not pointless to try and win.

      There is a minority on PD that seems completely opposed to the idea of doing anything but losing while PG sits.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

        Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
        But you are including all the teams that will never win a title, a better and more relevant game would be look at the teams that have won titles over the last 20 years and see how many of them did not have a top draft pick. You mention the Spurs but the anchor of that team was a high pick that happened because they had a terrible injury filled year a ton of luck and the basketball gods apparently deciding that Rick Pitino belongs in the college ranks and they needed to send him a sign.

        Clearly LeBron was a high pick, Wade was a lottery pick as well. Tim Duncan has how many titles now? How many teams have a title without Jordan Shaq Kobe Dream Magic Bird Isiah all high picks.
        So, championship or bust?

        The reality of the NBA is that yes, the most talented guys have outsized impact. TD, LeBron, Kobe, Shaq, and Jordan (just 5 players!) have all played a part in 16 of the last 20 championships.

        Now let me ask you, when you're drafting at #1 each year, what are the odds that you're drafting one of these 5 guys instead of someone like Oden or Beasley? Or perhaps more plausibly, someone who is merely very good, like a John Wall or Irving, instead of an actual once in a generation talent?

        What people miss is that tanking is a low percentage play, not just because of the low chance of getting the top pick, but also because of the extremely low chance of drafting an actual superstar.

        Now the "treadmill" way is a low percentage play too, no doubt about it. As Frank Vogel said in an interview recently, the idea is to hang around at the ECF level for a number of years (he specifically cited the example of the Pistons) and hoping for a lucky break that gets you past one of the superstar teams during one of those years. That's what happened for the Pistons, for the Mavs, and for the Celtics. It nearly happened for Reggie's Pacers. It might happen for George's Pacers too.

        As Peck says, there's more than one way to build a champion. Circumstances have led to us building in the slow, steady way. This method happens to suit my temperament, so I'm fine with it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          I think it's because it's easy to see the benefit of tanking (having the #9 pick is clearly better than #10), but it's not so easy to see the benefit of making the playoffs (growth in players and coaches, but there's no easily visible number for that).

          What people don't realize is that lottery positioning just isn't that valuable. The Cavs for instance had 3 #1 overall picks in the last 4 years, but it took LeBron's decision to vault them into contender status. On the flip side, teams like the Spurs and Griz built their teams mostly without the benefit of high lotto picks. Scouting matters more than draft positioning. Everybody likes to point to OKC with their high picks, but the truth is other than Durant they absolutely nailed those other guys (Westbrook and Harden) when other teams were drafting busts at the same draft positions. And of course OKC drafts well outside of the top picks too (Ibaka, Jackson, Adams), so they would have been fine without top picks anyway.

          Here's a fun exercise. List all 30 teams in the league, and choose the top 3 players for each team. You'd be surprised by how many of those guys were drafted outside of the top 10.
          THIS! Drafting in the lottery year after year only helps when you draft the right guys. You can look at a team like MIN who has been very bad since the KG era as a reason not to tank. Outside of Kevin Love (whom they didn't draft, but received after drafting OJ Mayo) they have had HORRIBLE selections in the lottery.

          2009 - Ricky Rubio(5), Johnny Flynn(6). Could have drafted: Steph Curry and/or Demar Derozan
          2010 - Wesley Johnson (4). Could have drafted: Paul George, Gordon Hayward, Demarcus Cousins, Eric Bledsoe, Larry Sanders, Greg Monroe
          2011 - Derrick Williams (2). Could have drafted: Klay Thompson, Kawhi Leonard, Tobias Harris, Nick Vucevic


          I could go on and on. But yes I agree, scouting is extremely important

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

            Someone a few years ago did a pretty good analysis (might have been either tbird or count55) of exactly where in the draft the players who have led their teams to championships came from. My PD-search-fu is failing me this morning; perhaps someone else can find it.

            I remember having taken away from this that very few teams drafting a top pick actually won a championship with that player - and most of the teams winning championships with a top player got him as a FA or in a trade.

            My position is this - winning is something in the hand. A draft pick, no matter where in the stack, is a gamble.

            For a team that is truly bad, that gamble is worth it. For a team that is either pretending to be bad or otherwise forcing themselves to be bad, how can it be so? If nothing else has shown itself it is that getting a single high draft pick has never taken a team from worst to first. So many other pieces have to come together - often multiple high draft picks numbering more than 5 - that the idea of doing this for a single year and coming out ahead astonishes me.

            If the Pacers are involved in a tight and hard-fought battle for 8th in the East come March and April, I want people to really look at how that is playing in the local market. I will guarantee you that the level of excitement from casual fans is going to be far greater than it would if we were cruising toward the lottery - and I'd love to see someone come out with a marketing plan that sells coming to a game to watch another notch toward a guaranteed 4th pick.
            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


            • #21
              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

              And another thing (what, you think I only have a few opinions on this? ) -who decides a team isn't going to win a championship? Anyone not top 4 the previous year? Anyone not with a winning record 3 weeks into the season? Anyone who doesn't have Tim Duncan or Lebron James on the team?

              How do you have a competitive sports league if 75% of the teams are out to lose? How do you become anything but WWE where the point is to watch Kobe score 100 points and lose?
              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


              • #22
                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                I don't want the Pacers to tank, but at the same time moving core pieces (not Hibbert or PG) for picks, expirings, etc. pretty much ensures that while our guys will give effort.... we won't "win ourselves out of a top 13 pick" at least.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  I don't want the Pacers to tank, but at the same time moving core pieces (not Hibbert or PG) for picks, expirings, etc. pretty much ensures that while our guys will give effort.... we won't "win ourselves out of a top 13 pick" at least.
                  Because the talent drop-off from 13 to 14 is so significant?
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                    Looking at championship teams, and counting how many top picks they have, is a bit misleading.

                    Yes, Wade was a high pick, but he doesn't win without Orlando's high pick or Cleveland's high pick. How did they get those other high picks? FA signings.
                    Same goes for the Lakers. Without Shaq and without Pau, does Kobe win rings? The only recent exception to this is the Spurs, and a whole bunch of luck is the only reason they got to where they are, not to mention great drafting late in the draft.

                    How can you say drafting high helps teams when here recently those high draft picks aren't staying with the teams that draft them?


                    There is a lot more examples of high draft picks doing nothing for the teams that drafted them, than there are staying with those teams and winning. So in the end, what good did Orlando getting Shaq do for Orlando? Not much. Maybe a sticker saying "We drafted Shaq."
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Because the talent drop-off from 13 to 14 is so significant?
                      Not necessarily. Who we want/need might not be there at 14. Those slots make a difference. Teams want a guy, he is drafted 12th... they have the 14th pick. They call the team who drafted at 12th about a trade, that team says "no.. goodbye." And then you end up drafting your second choice, or just the best player available at 14. It doesn't matter talent wise, drop off is minimal. But need and want wise? It does matter. If you need a point guard or a center, but the best available is taken two slots ahead of you, if you can't work a trade you're screwed.

                      I have faith in our front office though as far as scouting talent. Paul George of course, Lance, Solo seems to be blossoming, and K. Leonard was a great pick! We just had to trade him because we were in need of a point guard of some sort.
                      Last edited by Grimp; 11-18-2014, 10:10 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        There is a lot more examples of high draft picks doing nothing for the teams that drafted them, than there are staying with those teams and winning. So in the end, what good did Orlando getting Shaq do for Orlando? Not much. Maybe a sticker saying "We drafted Shaq."
                        Well, there is one thing you should point out about the Magic's situation back then. If Penny Hardaway wasn't Derrick Rose before being perpetually injured was hip then they would have been a lot better, and Shaq might have stuck around a little longer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                          I don't think it's pointless because these guys are getting paid to play at their best all season long. And like the Pacers a few years before PG and Lance, you never know when you can build pieces for future title runs. As long as the team plays hard every night, I can live with a losing season. The management just needs to start looking at draft picks for positions we will need to improve on down the road
                          Smothered Chicken!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                            No it's not pointless. The 2011 Pacers were nowhere near good enough to win a championship or even a playoff series for that matter, but competing hard with the young guys after Vogel took over laid a foundation that was built on over the next three years.

                            The key is to just draft as good a possible player as you can with your draft pick. Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki were drafted 9th and 10th in 1998. We followed that mold by drafting Paul George 10th. IMO, Bird had the perfect formula to develop a winner. Draft great with the picks you have (Granger, Hibbert, PG, Lance), make a trade that helps you win now (Hill and JO trade that gave us Hibbert) and sign a great free agent (West - best Pacers signing in history). Bird's brilliant GM wizardry was derailed by a freak PG injury and unlucky injuries to West and Hill, but I think we will be back to being an elite contender next season.

                            I would be curious to see what Bird could do with a really high pick since he has such a knack for getting great value out of picks, but that probably won't happen since we have such an awesome coach in Vogel. I'm fine with that because we're doing a great job of developing players who can help us in the future - Hill and Allen.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              Well, there is one thing you should point out about the Magic's situation back then. If Penny Hardaway wasn't Derrick Rose before being perpetually injured was hip then they would have been a lot better, and Shaq might have stuck around a little longer.
                              Penny didn't start getting injured until after Shaq left. In Shaq's last Orlando year, Penny played all 82 games. With Shaq, Penny's games played were 82, 77, 82.

                              At the time, from a pure basketball standpoint, Orlando clearly offered Shaq the better chance of winning. He had no way of knowing that Penny would get perpetually injured or that Kobe would turn into Michael Jordan lite. In reality, all Shaq ever wanted from day 1 was to be starting center of the Los Angeles Lakers.

                              The funny thing about the 1993 draft was that the 41-41 Magic had the lowest odds to win the lottery, yet they somehow won it for the second straight year and got the pick that they used on Webber and ultimately traded for Penny.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                                Are there really fans that look back on, say, the 2012-2013 season and think "Man, how disappointing?"
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X