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

Just a reminder - Myles is (almost) untradeable this season

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

    We're not losing Domas. Unlike half this board, he actually likes playing alongside Myles. They practiced together over the summer. One day Nate will be forced to start Domas at PF and that's when we're going to take the next step as a team.
    McMillan is a dumb coach. In the first half, he brings in Sabonis to play with Turner...for literally 10 seconds then brings in Leaf.

    How the hell are you supposed to find out if they can play together(even though I know they can) if you don't play them together? Dumbass coach
    Last edited by BornIndy; 10-25-2018, 01:35 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      To add to my previous post, how the hell are the Pacers supposed to know if Turner can take the next step if you don't run anything through him? Fuxking stupid *** coach

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        OH NO! He's 22 and not averaging 30 ppg - TRADE HIM! Look... Myles I think will be fine and in order to accelerate that process, this team needs to get a new point guard. Point guards are the straw that stirs the drink. Without a decent point to get him the ball in the right spots and soon enough to be effective? He will struggle - as will this team. Collison is a good player but at this stage in his career he is not staring PG material unless someone is injured and out for a few games.

        You also have to realize that Myles has to develop on his own because he doesn't have the ESPN/NBA hype machine behind him. Which allows him to play a certain way and get away with fouls, travels and all other sorts of nonsense. Thus - he actually has to do the hard work of developing his game, unlike other bigs (Embiid for example) who're just 'gifted' everything by NBA politics.
        I agree. Even imagine Sabonis playing in San Antonio, the media would love him and also be praising Popavich about how he discovered him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BornIndy View Post
          I agree. Even imagine Sabonis playing in San Antonio, the media would love him and also be praising Popavich about how he discovered him.
          But if we would just play him 30mpg and let him average 19 and 14 then they would be praising us!
          House Name: Pacers

          House Sigil:



          House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Diamond Dave View Post

            But if we would just play him 30mpg and let him average 19 and 14 then they would be praising us!
            Unfortunately, Nate sees Thad as one of our most important players. I wish that he realizes that this isn't always a case and gives the big lineup a go much more often.
            People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

              Unfortunately, Nate sees Thad as one of our most important players. I wish that he realizes that this isn't always a case and gives the big lineup a go much more often.
              He is not unimportant, but he is also not part of the future. He and Myles are bad combination. They are the two weakest rebounders of both of them and Sabonis and KOQ. Thad should be paired up with KOQ off the bench most nights. Now on occasion when we play a small forward masquerading as a power forward, it could be appropriate to start Thad on those nights.

              But these past 2 games are ones that the Pacers absolutely could/should have started Myles and Domas.
              House Name: Pacers

              House Sigil:



              House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Diamond Dave View Post

                He is not unimportant, but he is also not part of the future. He and Myles are bad combination. They are the two weakest rebounders of both of them and Sabonis and KOQ. Thad should be paired up with KOQ off the bench most nights. Now on occasion when we play a small forward masquerading as a power forward, it could be appropriate to start Thad on those nights.

                But these past 2 games are ones that the Pacers absolutely could/should have started Myles and Domas.
                I agree. Domas and KOQ are definitely superior rebounders to Myles and Thad. Thad is by far the worst offender when it comes to defensive rebounding, imo. We do need him when we're facing ball-handling PFs (Giannis, LeBron, Durant, even Blake Griffin probably counts now) but he gambles a lot on the passing lanes which often hurts both our 3-point defense (I still remember when last season we were burned back to back by Tobias Harris and then Nikola Mirotić) and our defensive rebounding. I agree that he is not unimportant but as you said is not part of the future which is all the more reason why Domas and Myles (the two bigs that are part of the future) should see more playing time together.

                I'm really not sure why Nate doesn't want to go the Myles/Domas lineup more often. I can understand the benefits of bringing Domas off the bench (I don't agree with it but I do understand that opposing benches absolutely cannot deal with the Domas/Reke PnR) but I just don't get why Domas isn't the first sub in the game in Thad's place and why those two don't play more together.

                The offensive fit is pretty obvious. Domas needs shooters around to take advantage of his great passing at the top of the key while leaving the paint open for his dives at the PnR. Myles is one of our shooters (not our deadliest and he hasn't gotten as many spot-up opportunities as he should but he still provides the spacing that Domas needs). Myles needs good passers to help him get open shots. Domas is one of those passers.

                The defensive fit is also pretty obvious to me. Myles himself is an average rebounder. He needs to be paired with a good rebounder if you want to be a good rebounding team. Being a good rebounding team isn't necessary in today's league as last year's finalists, GSW and Cleveland, were 19th and 24th respectively in Total Rebound Rate% but it's still something that I personally want out of my team (plus, we don't have the talent that those teams do so it's likely that we do need it more than them). Domas, on the other hand, is not a reliable rim protector (he does get his fair share of blocks but he doesn't actually deter the opposing team from driving to the lane since they know that they can either finish over him or put him in foul trouble) so he needs to be paired with one and Myles is the best rim protector we have on the roster.

                So, it makes sense. What's the holdup here? Is it the fear that Domas cannot defend in space? This just isn't true. OKC played Domas as a PF in his rookie season and he scored as one of their best defenders (alongside Dipo). He defended in space and guarded PFs as Steven Adams manned the middle. In the few cases where he's been tasked to defend in space or switch on ball-handlers as a Pacers he has also done a very good job at it. He also does it with his NT where he once again plays as a PF next to Valančiūnas. Domas has excellent footwork. We all see it when he's posting up (sometimes his over-reliance to his left hand gets the best of him but his footwork is always very good). He also has excellent mobility and this season he appears to have more spring and a better vertical than ever. We all see that when he's diving to the basket after a screen. Why would anyone think that his lateral movement is an issue? It quite simply isn't. His one issue is his wingspan and he won't need to worry about it if he's playing next to someone who can protect the rim.

                I can think of one more potential argument. Having Domas defend the PF spot will take him away from the rim and thus limit his rebounding numbers. His rebounding numbers in OKC could be used as an example of that. Those numbers were indeed pretty poor (3.6 RPG, 3 of them defensive, in 20.6 MPG). But here's why we shouldn't be worried about those numbers. Those numbers are deflated. They aren't the numbers that Domas would have in a normal setting. And that's not only the case for Domas. It was the case for the rest of OKC's bigs as well. It still is the case for those still there. Steven Adams is one of the best rebounding bigs in the game and this is the first season where he's averaging double-digit boards. Ever since Durant left OKC, they have made Westbrook their designated rebounder. That is, Westbrook is the player that is going to grab the freebie rebounds. You know, the rebounds that no one opposing team is going to contest. Russell will get back, grab the board and try to get the team on the break. It does make sense as a tactic because Westbrook is one of the scariest players in the league with a full head of steam and having him grab the board and attack immediately is one of the best ways to ensure that said head of steam. Or they could be doing because they wanted to build hype around their team/sell more tickets after Durant left (something that did work as he won the MVP that year after averaging a triple-double). Everyone is free to take their pick. My point is that it did happen. And the best proof of that is none other than OKC's rebounding statistics for that year. Here they are:

                https://stats.nba.com/players/reboun...mID=1610612760

                First point of emphasis here is rebounding chances. Rebounding chances are exactly what it says on the tin. How many times each game a player has the chance to rebound the ball. Westbrook is leading OKC with 17.1 rebounding chances per game. This means that Westbrook was more often in position to rebound the ball than anyone else on his team. Yes, including his Centers (Adams and Kanter). If you want to compare it to the rest of the league that year for a point of reference here goes. That's what we get if expand the search to every NBA team:

                https://stats.nba.com/players/reboun..._CHANCES&dir=1

                Russell Westbrook is #14 in the league with those 17.1 rebounding chances. Everyone who ranks above him is a big (and most of them Centers with the exception of Kevin Love and depending on how you view Anthony Davis). Westbrook has no reason being there. There are only two other guards in the whole top 50. James Harden at #36 with 13.7 rebounding chances and Avery Bradley at #50 with 12.8 rebounding chances. There are a couple of wings in the 35-50 range but the top 30 consists of bigs, Westbrook, Giannis and LeBron (and honestly if Giannis and LeBron didn't count as PFs back in 16-17, they definitely count now). So, yeah, Westbrook having so many rebounding chances is not normal. It's unique. It's an anomaly.

                Anyway, back to the OKC chart. Allow me to post it once again and emphasize on a different statistic:

                https://stats.nba.com/players/reboun...mID=1610612760

                Take a look at his contested rebounding numbers. Out of his 10.7 total rebounds that season only 2.4 were contested. That means that the remaining 8.3 rebounds were uncontested (meaning that no opponent was anywhere close when he got the rebound). So, let's paint the full picture here. Russell Westbrook in 16-17 had 17.1 chances per game to rebound the ball per game. He succeeded in 10.7 of those chances on average (hence the 62.3% rebounding chance percentage). Out of those 10.7 rebounds, 2.4 were contested while 8.3 were uncontested (hence the 22.2% contested rebounding percentage which implies a 77.8% uncontested rebound percentage). What does that tell us? It tells us that OKC's bigs were instructed to focus on boxing out and leave the easy boards to Russell. This is also evident by their own numbers.

                Steven Adams averaged 7.7 rebounds that year. 4.1 of them were contested. That's over half his total rebounds.

                Enes Kanter averaged 6.7 rebounds that year. 3.3 of them were contested. That's over half his total rebounds or quite close to it (NBA.com is showing that he had an exactly 50% contested rebound percentage which makes sense when you do the math and see that he averaged a bit less than 6.7 for the year, it was actually exactly 6.694 which was then rounded up and explains the weird math).

                7.7 and 6.7 look like bad rebounding numbers but make no mistake here. Both Adams and Kanter were and are good rebounders. They have always been good rebounders. Their numbers were just deflated, just like it happened to Domas. Adams still suffers from this as I pointed out above. And that's why when Westbrook was on the bench or wasn't in spot to get the board himself they'd gobble those boards up. They were already allowing Westbrook to grab their boards. They weren't about to let Domas do the same which served to deflated his numbers even more (albeit definitely a lot less than the Westbrook deal).

                Before we return to Domas, allow me to clarify something. I'm not saying that Westbrook is not a good rebounder. He isn't someone that would normally average the numbers he does (no guard is, let's be real here) but he definitely is an amazing rebounder for his position. Not every guard could pull off those numbers even if every team tried to do what OKC did. Westbrook is definitely a special rebounder. 2.4 contested rebounds for a guard is an amazing number after all. So, all this was not a knock on Westbrook. I simply posted all that to clarify that Domas defending the PF spot (while still playing C on offense, that shouldn't change) doesn't mean that his rebounding numbers will suddenly plummet to the numbers he had in OKC.

                Will his individual numbers fall if he defends PFs instead of Centers which would put him further away from the rim? Yeah, it's probable. But should we care about any player's individual numbers? No, we shouldn't. Even if Domas was tasked to defend PFs, he would still do what Thad rarely does. Not gamble for steals, stay with your man and block out after a shot is up. That alone would improve our rebounding tremendously and it's how we rebound as a team that should be our primary concern, not individual rebounding numbers.

                People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi guys. I think Myles Turner is a pretty good basketball player and that it's dumb to stake out sides of player vs. player year after year. after year. after year. after year.


                  unless it's Monta. Monta sux.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The biggest problem I see with Myles and Domas together is that their defensive weaknesses are not complementary to each others' strengths. Myles strength is his defense at the basket. Domas does not excel there. Which one do you want trying to run out to defend perimeter shooting 4s? You could send Myles at the cost of losing ground under the basket, or you can send Domas who is not as quick to rotate out there so lose a step defending the 3.

                    We often forget that fixing the offense at the expense of the defense doesn't tend to change the outcome of games.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The biggest problem I see with Myles and Domas together is that their defensive weaknesses are not complementary to each others' strengths. Myles strength is his defense at the basket. Domas does not excel there. Which one do you want trying to run out to defend perimeter shooting 4s? You could send Myles at the cost of losing ground under the basket, or you can send Domas who is not as quick to rotate out there so lose a step defending the 3.

                      We often forget that fixing the offense at the expense of the defense doesn't tend to change the outcome of games.
                      In most cases I would have Turner defend under the basket in order to protect the rim.

                      There must be some kind of defensive scheme we can come up with so Sabonis can adequately defend 4's for 8-10 mpg.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sav View Post

                        In most cases I would have Turner defend under the basket in order to protect the rim.

                        There must be some kind of defensive scheme we can come up with so Sabonis can adequately defend 4's for 8-10 mpg.
                        The problem is that rotating to cover 4 perimeter shooters is extremely hard if their spacing is good. The strategy is to make someone have to rotate to cover Myles' man if a player drives to the basket (our perimeter man-to-man just isn't good enough to completely stop that penetration), and if Domas can't rotate his coverage fast enough someone will be open for a kicked out 3. The counter to this is for Myles to hang on to his man longer to disrupt the possibility of a kickout but then he either gets to the rim too late and fouls or is unable to be in position to stop the drive. Domas could rotate to the middle but then he is pretty hit-or-miss on defending a driver himself.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Which one do you want trying to run out to defend perimeter shooting 4s?
                          Domas. That's where I believe that he's best at on the defensive end.

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          You could send Myles at the cost of losing ground under the basket, or you can send Domas who is not as quick to rotate out there so lose a step defending the 3.
                          Who said that Domas is not quick to rotate? He has never struggled with it in his NBA career. He was great at rotating over and covering PFs in OKC. He has done a very good job at it in the few times that he was tasked to do it as a Pacer. That's exactly what I was saying above. We all see how well and quickly Domas moves on the offensive end of the court. We see how well he moves his feet, we see how quickly and how explosively he dives to the rim. Why do we believe that he cannot do the same on the defensive end? We have no reason to believe that. Domas is more mobile than we give him credit for.
                          People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Can someone who understands this rule a little better give an example of the type of trade that would actually be legal? I understand the rule in theory but can't picture how that would look in practice if we actually traded him. I would like to see an example to to gain a better understanding. It doesn't even need to be a "good" trade. Just one with all the pieces filled in that would be legal under the CBA so that I have a picture.

                            Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by nss431 View Post
                              Can someone who understands this rule a little better give an example of the type of trade that would actually be legal? I understand the rule in theory but can't picture how that would look in practice if we actually traded him. I would like to see an example to to gain a better understanding. It doesn't even need to be a "good" trade. Just one with all the pieces filled in that would be legal under the CBA so that I have a picture.

                              Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
                              https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2018/10/...provision.html

                              This article is as good a primer on the subject as I've seen. My understanding of the subject is that Indiana treats Turner as an outgoing salary of $3.410M (his salary in the final year of his rookie contact, 2018-19), the receiving team treats him as the average of his current salary and each year of his extension, averaged out. So in Myles case, 4 years/$72M (with $2M each season in unlikely bonuses, which do not need to be matched) plus $3.410, divided by 5. This yields an incoming number of $15.08M. As the Pacers are over the cap, they would need to take in +/- 125% of Turner's current $3.410M salary to make the trade conform to the rules. This is basically impossible, with one caveat. The Sacramento Kings are the only team under the salary cap ($90,844,422 vs $101,869,000 for the 2018-19 NBA salary cap), so they would need to be included in any potential trade. A two team swap of Turner for Buddy Hield straight up works, for example. Turner's $15.08 number incoming puts the Kings salary cap at $102,090,460 (although, that is over the salary cap so maybe this would not work?) and the Pacers, while remaining over the cap, would be legally allowed to absorb +/- 125% of Turner's current year salary (Hield's $3,833,760 fits in that bracket). But that's the general idea.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post

                                https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2018/10/...provision.html

                                This article is as good a primer on the subject as I've seen. My understanding of the subject is that Indiana treats Turner as an outgoing salary of $3.410M (his salary in the final year of his rookie contact, 2018-19), the receiving team treats him as the average of his current salary and each year of his extension, averaged out. So in Myles case, 4 years/$72M (with $2M each season in unlikely bonuses, which do not need to be matched) plus $3.410, divided by 5. This yields an incoming number of $15.08M. As the Pacers are over the cap, they would need to take in +/- 125% of Turner's current $3.410M salary to make the trade conform to the rules. This is basically impossible, with one caveat. The Sacramento Kings are the only team under the salary cap ($90,844,422 vs $101,869,000 for the 2018-19 NBA salary cap), so they would need to be included in any potential trade. A two team swap of Turner for Buddy Hield straight up works, for example. Turner's $15.08 number incoming puts the Kings salary cap at $102,090,460 (although, that is over the salary cap so maybe this would not work?) and the Pacers, while remaining over the cap, would be legally allowed to absorb +/- 125% of Turner's current year salary (Hield's $3,833,760 fits in that bracket). But that's the general idea.
                                That's helpful. I appreciate it.

                                Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X