Tweet
Originally posted by PacerDude
View Post
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.
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
-
Nah. This one cuts across generations and age lines. Even in this thread you can find older fans (Generation X) who agree with the OP and millennials who disagree with the OP.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise. -
Yep, and people are crying because we didn’t win the one trophy that they passed out since he did take over.Originally posted by vnzla81 View PostComment
-
18 months?Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
What I am talking about goes back at least 15 years.
The owner is cheap. And Im tired of people making excuses for him. He is barely involved with the team and has a reputation league wide as pretty hands off. He barely shows up to games. He has no passion for the Indiana Pacers, his passion is obviously somwhere else. Amd thats ok, but we deserve an owner that can match our passion for this team, in this town.
We have been very good to him. And if he cant be the kind of owner that is willing to take a financial risk once in awhile, he needs to roll out to Arizona or where ever it is he spends most of his time and just stay there. Because he lobbied the city of Indianapolis claiming he needed a better stadium, then he lobbied to get his operating expenses paid for, now hes got a fancy medical center.....and all this was done under the premise that we will be able to compete with anyone, not that we were gonna be limited to an occasional divisional title."Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"Comment
-
Competing with anyone and beating everyone is a pretty big span, no? We currently have the fifth best record in the league, that is not competing?Originally posted by Taterhead View PostComment
-
No, I feel like we are about 100 years from competing at a championship level, at this current pace.Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
Where do you realistically expect the Pacers to finish this season?
Do you honestly expect them to attract a difference making free agent next summer? A high quality starter?
Do you honestly expect them to make a major trade to improve the roster anytime soon?
Is it really that ridiculous to want the team to STOP WASTING MONEY ON PEOPLE LIKE DOUG MCDERMOTT AND TYREKE EVANS AND SAVE IT FOR SOMEONE WORTH SIGNING? You couldve got McDermott for 1 year vet minimum and we gave him damn near 20 million? Cmon man. Of course its not. Youre just defending poor ownership."Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"Comment
-
And how is it not their fault we have so many guys you cant get anything for?Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
This is who they are signing. Guys with zero value. And they are giving them long term deals.
So lets defend them for these ****** decisions?
"Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"Comment
-
That quote was a response to someone implying that I’d be upset if we don’t make a move at trade deadline. It is very difficult to improve at the deadline and my point was that if we can’t even take advantage of opportunities in the off-season (not FAs, if big FAs will not come here that’s all the more reason you NEED to do better in draft and in trades), there’s no way they’re doing it at trade deadline.Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View PostComment
-
3rd or 4th seed. We could even fall to the 5th seed but it depends on how much separation we can get until we hit the rough patch of our schedule in March. That brutal stretch starts with the game @ Milwaukee early in March. We have the following games remaining until then:Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
vs Toronto
@ Memphis
vs Golden State
@ Washington
@ Orlando
@ Miami
@ NOLA
vs LA Lakers
vs LA Clippers
vs Cleveland
vs Charlotte
vs Milwaukee
vs NOLA
@ Washington
@ Detroit
@ Dallas
vs Minnesota
vs Orlando
vs Chicago
Those are the next 19 games. Only 3 of those games are going to be against elite teams (vs Toronto, vs Golden State, vs Milwaukee). Two more games are going to be against above .500 teams (LA Lakers, LA Clippers) and 5 or 6 games are going to be against teams that are a bit below .500 right now (depending on how you feel about Dallas which has a 16-6 record at home) but have a chance of being at or above .500 when we face them (@ Miami, @ NOLA, vs Charlotte, vs NOLA, @ Dallas, vs Minnesota).
One of the main reasons why we have the record that we have right now is that we are really, really good at beating the teams that we should be beating. We are currently 22-3 against teams below .500. That's a .880 winning percentage. Conversely, our record against teams .500 or above is not that good (and it always fluctuates due to the nature of this statistic). Right now, we are at 9-12 against teams .500 or above. That's a .428 winning percentage.
So, let's try to apply those numbers in the above 20 game stretch. We have 5 games that are going to be for sure above .500. If we apply that .428 percentage on those games, we come out with a 2-3 record in those 5 games. I think that this is a realistic outcome.
The 6 games against the teams hovering around .500 should be looked at individually, imo. Personally, I believe that we drop the games @ NOLA and @ Dallas and that we win the rest. So, a 4-2 record there.
That leaves us with 8 games. If we were to apply our .880 record to those 9 games, we come out with a 7-1 record. Combine those 3 and we come out with a 13-6 record in those 20 games. That would put us at 44-21 with 17 games remaining and our brutal stretch coming up.
In those last 17 games, we face 11 teams above .500 and most of them are at the very top of the standings. We are facing Denver twice, OKC twice and Boston twice and we also play @ Milwaukee, @ Philly, @ Portland, @ Golden State and @ LA Clippers. It goes without saying that this is going to be a very rough patch. If we keep up our .428 winning percentage against the top teams in that stretch then our possible record in those games is 5-6. But since those aren't just above .500 teams but they are mostly the absolute elite of the league and because a lot of those games are away from home then I think that expecting 5 wins is a bit optimistic here. 4 or 3 wins are probably more probable. So, let's take the absolute worst scenario here and go with 3 wins here. A 3-8 record.
Our remaining games are vs New York, vs Orlando, vs Detroit, @ Detroit, vs Brooklyn and @ Atlanta. Keeping up our .880 winning percentage against below .500 teams would have us at 5-1 against those teams which could even be pessimistic if we're chasing a seed and we're playing all out. Add up those two and we get an 8-9 record in the final 17 games which is possible albeit a bit pessimistic. Add that record to our record so far and we end up with a 52-30 record.
What's a 52-30 record good for? Last season, that was the exact record that Philly had and they were the 3rd seed. Two years ago, the #1 seed in the East, the Celtics, had a 53-29 record and the #2 and #3 seeds (Cleveland and Toronto) were at 51-31. Three years ago, the two top seeds (Cleveland and Toronto) wore more than 55 games and the Heat got the #3 seed with 48 wins (on a crazy tie-breaker with 3 other teams). Four years ago, the #2 seed, Cleveland, won 53 games and the #3 seed, Chicago, won 50 games. Five years ago, we won the #1 seed with 56 wins and the #2 seed, Miami, had 54 wins. The #3 seed, Toronto, had 48 wins. I don't think I have to go further back than that. I believe that you get my point here. 52 wins has always been good enough for the 3rd seed in the East.
Can Boston get there? Maybe. Their current record is 29-18 which is a .617 winning percentage. They have 35 games remaining and if they were to retain their winning percentage intact that would mean that they'd go 21-14 (or 22-13). That would put them at 50 or 51 wins. 19 of those 35 games are against teams .500 or more. This number could go down to 17 if you don't count the Sacramento Kings who are right around .500 but it could also go up if you count the Hornets or the Nets who are in a similar situation (hovering close to .500). Regardless of the way you count it, though, they're still going to play at least 17 more games against teams .500 or more. Their record against those teams is, once again, quite similar to ours. They are 8-10 which is a .444 winning percentage. Let's be generous to them and only count 17 of those games as .500 or above ones. 44.4% of 17 is 7.55. Let's round it up and give them an 8-9 record in those 17 games. The remaining 18 games would be against teams below .500 (even if some of them would actually be above .500 at the time as the aforementioned Kings or even the Nets) and the Celtics have a 21-8 record against those teams which is a .724 winning percentage. Apply that winning percentage to the remaining 18 games and you get a 13-5 record. Combine that 13-5 record with the previous 8-9 record and we get 21-14 which is exactly what their current winning percentage projects them at.
So, the Celtics need to outplay their current production to reach 52 wins. That is indeed possible since their current stats are no doubt affected by their slow start to the season but it's not a given. They can maybe get there.
As for Philly, there's nothing stopping Philly from getting to 52 wins themselves. They are in the middle of a tough stretch themselves right now as their next 9 opponents are all going to be .500 and above (and they aren't much better than us at beating those teams, their record against them is 9-11). If we manage to get some good separation against them during this stretch then we can hold on to the 3rd seed. If we can't then Philly can definitely overtake us when we are in the middle of our own tough stretch.
That tough stretch for Philly started with the game against us, which didn't prove so tough after all. Tonight's game against Houston didn't prove tough for them either but they did drop the OKC game. They are facing San Antonio in two days and then they embark on their West Coast trip. They play @ Denver, @ LA Lakers, @ GSW and then @ Sacramento. They then return home to face Toronto, then Denver, then LA Lakers and finally Boston. Their schedule then lets up a bit as they face 9 teams .500 or above in the final 25 games. But until they get to that easier stretch, they are a bit vulnerable. Overall, they'll have to face 18 teams .500 or above in their last 34 games. Their winning percentage against those teams is .450. 45% of 18 is 8.1. So, an 8-10 record in those games sounds reasonable. The remaining 16 games are against teams below .500 and their record against them is 22-6 which is an .785 winning percentage. Applying that to the 16 remaining games gives us a 12-4 or 13-3 record. Combine that with the previous 8-10 and you get either 20-14 or 21-13. Given that their record right now 31-17 it means that a projected record for them would be either 51-31 or 52-30. So, as I said at the start of my comment on Philly, they can indeed get to 52 wins.
So, I do expect the 3rd, 4th and 5th seeds to be very close record-wise. I believe that our chances of getting either the 3rd or the 4th seed and retain HCA for the playoffs are pretty good. 52 wins are pretty attainable for us this season, especially if we keep taking care of business against teams below .500. Remember, I was pretty pessimistic when I predicted our record in those 11 tough games after the ASB to be 3-8 and we still got to 52 wins.
No. We have never been a market that can draw big name FAs and I don't expect that to change now.Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
Absolutely. Pritchard is known for being aggressive in the trading market and getting his team favorable trades. He has already proved that with the PG trade. A trade that was widely panned as bad but has been an absolute steal for us.Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
6 to 8 million is the range that shooters are getting paid at. Joe Harris, CJ Miles, Kyle Korver, Langston Galloway, Dāvis Bertāns, Ersan Ilyasova, Wayne Ellington and Marco Belinelli are all in that range. I would have preferred to give him a 1-year deal and retain maximum cap flexibility for this summer but the team probably believes that Doug can be either Bojan's replacement or, at the very least, insurance.Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
Look, I get the issues that a number of you have against the ownership. Our team's ownership hasn't been great. There are definitely worse owners out there (Phoenix, New York, Chicago and Washington to name a few) but there are also much better owners out there. I'd say that our ownership is about average and I agree with the complaints about Simon's willingness to go into the LT.
But the FO? No, I don't agree with that. The vast majority of the FO's moves so far have been very good. The PG trade was amazing. Getting DC, CoJo and Bojan last summer proved to be very good for the team. This year's draft with Aaron Holiday and Alize Johnson was also quite good. Aaron Holiday has looked like a player and Alize has been putting up great numbers in the G-League. Speaking of the G-League, our 2nd round pick last year, Edmond Sumner, has also been putting up amazing numbers down there.
Yes, the Leaf pick wasn't good. A number of players that have proved to be better than him were still at the board when we picked him. One could argue that this was mainly a Bird pick but I'm fine if you want to put it on KP. What else can we put on KP, though? The McDermott deal, I guess, but I already commented on it. The money is correct but I can see why someone would disagree with the years.
The Reke deal? I think that this was a signing that most people liked. It was a signing that was widely praised by the NBA media. It hasn't panned out so far but Reke is playing better lately. Maybe it pans out in the end, maybe it doesn't. We'll see. It certainly wasn't a deal that was bad from the get go, though.
Personally, I'd say that KP's biggest mistake so far was to extend Nate McMillan. Nate definitely deserved the extension given the way that the team defied our expectations last year but I just don't believe that Nate is the coach to take this team to the next level. Missing on 1 out of 4 picks and giving 2 years more to a player that has a contract in the MLE range aren't grave offenses to me.
Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Long term deals? There are exactly 3 players that have a non-rookie deal extending past this summer. Victor Oladipo, Myles Turner and Doug McDermott. Yeah, I'd prefer to give Doug a shorter deal as well but let's not pretend that everyone in the team is locked up for a long time. There's a reason why we'll have cap space this summer.Originally posted by Taterhead View PostOriginally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Bojan definitely was a good FA signing. The biggest problem with having a bottleneck of FA guards in Cojo, Tyreke, DC is that it’s pretty tough to play our young guys that could potentially be core pieces next to Vic and Myles. U can’t justify Holiday getting minutes over Cojo if Cojo is playing well and outplaying Holiday in practice. But if you figure this out in the off-season you can give these guys a clearer path to minutes and you could play Holiday big minutes and if he doesn’t work, play Sumner. Play Johnson or Sumner in McDermotts role, you can’t just add 3 point shooting by hiring specialists. You do it by using positions of surplus like gaurd and center to trade for a guy that has all around game. We don’t need 2 future all stars at center, and I know people like them both. I like Doug too, I’m not trying to say these guys aren’t fantastic ball players but damn think outside the box. I just really wish the FO would think of these things in the off-season bcuz now it’s too late, you can’t justify Cojo losing minutes to these guys. Or DC or even Evans. It’s probably going to be impossible to get a fair return on one of our centers with limited selection. That’s just a few of many things the FO does poorly IMO. This is all just my opinion, I’m just a fan, it’s not like this is LBs burner account lol. They do good stuff all the time, but it’s the easy stuff they do well, like signing Myles during off season or getting rid of Lance.Comment
-
More than that, Baby Boomers are the epitome of the want it now and damn the consequences. It's their legacy.Originally posted by Nuntius View PostDanger ZoneComment
-
I definitely agree with the idea of consolidating the center depth in to a more valuable piece at a different position (ie a player as good as Domas but able to play with Turner and Vic or vice versa, although I think Myles fits this team in particular and the modern NBA in general with his rim protection and deep shooting, even tho the coaching staff have yet to make best use of it). I don't knock the FO for any part of the PG trade, especially getting a young future All-Star center as essentially a throw-in. Vic by himself is a fairly one-to-one replacement for Paul George. Getting Sabonis out of the deal only tips the trade more in KP's favor, despite the fact that PG is having an incredible season in OKC this year (as in, should be top 5 in the MVP race even though he has not gotten that type of love so far). If they can swing Sabonis for a premium talent at either the 1 or the 3 (or put the team in position to draft a difference maker) they should, IMO. I'm a believer in the Turner/Sabonis pairing in the long-term, but Thad is playing out of his mind right now so I'm not sure you can really force Domas in to the starting 4. As good as Sabonis is roasting second units, I'd prefer a player who is a more clean fit replacing Turner's defensive production as his backup moving forward. Someone like Robin Lopez? I like the Kyle O'Quinn move as cheap injury insurance, but think he fits better with the starters than Sabonis, but not if sure he can play that many minutes? Maybe he'd be okay as the primary backup for Turner in the event that they moved on from Sabonis (again, only if they can get a premium piece in return that fits better with the incumbent starters).Originally posted by bumpercar3 View PostComment
-
What I don't understand about this argument at the current time is that there is literally nothing the Pacers can do to be contenders. In fact, there really is nothing any team can do to be a legit contender, apart from hope that Golden State players start suffering major injuries come playoff time.Danger ZoneComment
-
Really?Originally posted by Rogco View Post
So what happens if Golden State has a down year? Lets say Curry and Thompson go down and it is all the sudden, wide open? We get serious, then?
Thats exactly why you never take your foot off the gas, because things change quickly and you dont know whats gonna happen. Instead we twiddle our thumbs and wait.
Golden State just won the title and signed Demarcus Cousins. They arent content. Why are so many Pacers fans content with so much less? They couldve easily said they could never beat Lebron and called it a day.
Nobody is asking them to spend a fortune.
Noone is asking them to make a miracle happen.
But I wanna see a front office with a vision and I have no idea what the vision is. They havent done anything positive in about a year and a half. We shouldnt be satisfied and praising Kevin Pritchard for having a descent team, which he admitted was surprising and not something he necessarily expected last year.
And Im tired of hearing about his reputation in Portland. He was fired. Thats his reputation in Portland.Last edited by Taterhead; 01-22-2019, 11:28 AM."Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"Comment
-
But you dont expect them to sign anyone. So what happens then? We overpay another Doug McDermott, and then another Doug McDermott, until that space is gone and we are back to making excuses for the ownership and management. Because, we have to field a roster next year whether a top guy wants to play here or not. And the FO is gonna want to have something to sell the fans on, given their strategy and all.Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
Its an endless circle of.....we dont have the money, we will have the money someday, but noone wants the money, so what average guy can we give too much money to so we can avoid drafting a guy who is actually worth the money? We can never trade the guys we sign because we always overpay. So we give them multiyear deals, because that makes sense.
I guess Im just wondering what it is everyone likes about never beating the great teams that makes you so happy with this dead end approach? Everyone else beats the bad teams too, including the bad teams.Last edited by Taterhead; 01-22-2019, 11:47 AM."Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"Comment
Comment