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

Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

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

  • #76
    Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

    Originally posted by Trophy View Post
    Even if we don't get the top 3, we can still get a possible steal in the 4 or 5.
    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
    Or we can end up with the 9th pick...
    Originally posted by Trophy View Post
    We can even get a possible steal there, but I hope/doubt that we're picking that high.

    I'm not sure, but I think Duke is saying that even if the Pacers end the season with the Xth worst record, their luck will probably dictate that they end up selecting in position X+3.

    We shouldn't expect them to move up to a better draft position thanks to the lottery. We should expect that the balls will go against the Pacers and that they'll draft at or below their lottery position.



    .

    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Well, I could go as far as considering tanking "stealing the draft".
      I'll be ok if we steal Wall or Turner, what do I have to do to make this happen?
      Last edited by vnzla81; 03-10-2010, 07:46 PM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I'll be ok if we steal Wall or Turner, what do I have to do to make this happen?
        Sacramento's beating the snot outta Toronto right now, so we're going to be alone in 4th again. Good things can still happen without us having to root for losses.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

          Originally posted by ToasterBusVIP View Post
          Sacramento's beating the snot outta Toronto right now, so we're going to be alone in 4th again. Good things can still happen without us having to root for losses.
          Here's the fundamental issue underlying all of this: we have no substantive effect on the team.

          Because of this, it doesn't matter if we root for them to win or lose. I think you can make a case for doing either since it won't actually affect the team. My problem is with people that suggest that my way of rooting for me is wrong.
          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          You do realize you make the rest of your post totally irrelevant with this part, because clearly what I said didnt apply to you.

          If you'd like, though, maybe someone can find you bigger cross. Evidently, you need one.

          Oh, and for future reference, using silly terms like "fandom" and "fanhood" totally ruins the serious tone you were going for with the rest of your post. You didnt need the dancing bananas at all.
          Haha, this actually made me laugh. Superb.

          Kstat, I'm not sure if we're still on the same wave-length here, but I have to remain adamant that I think you were attacking people such as myself or Hicks that want the team to lose. You said:
          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          BTW, I have nothing but contempt for people who root for their own team to lose. Whether the ends justify the means or not, wrong is wrong.
          "Root for their own team to lose." That seems to imply a person, such as myself or Hicks, that hopes their own team will lose. (A stylistic note that might be at the root of some of our disagreement and might render all of the following moot: you could be suggesting that your contempt is reserved for people that root for their own team (i.e. their management) to lose (intentionally).) There is a distinction to be made here between rooting for losses and rooting for losing on purpose. In either case, you shouldn't be telling someone how to root for their team but still, it's an important distinction.

          We root for losses, as you imply in the next sentence, because, to us, the ends justify the means. Morality is not a part for it. Yeah, maybe we're Machiavellian fans but I think it's in poor taste to criticize someone for how they root for their team (but, then again, I also think it's in poor taste to resort to ad hominem in argumentation so what do I know?).

          We're not advocating that the team lose on purpose or throw the games. Though that does not seem to be a part of your contempt, anyways-at least how you phrase it here. And, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter, really since we don't affect the team's actions anyways.
          Last edited by rexnom; 03-11-2010, 05:04 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            I'm not sure, but I think Duke is saying that even if the Pacers end the season with the Xth worst record, their luck will probably dictate that they end up selecting in position X+3.
            That depends on where X is.

            If you have the worst record in the league, you are the most likely team to be selecting at position X + 3 ( simply by the fact that you have the most teams that can jump ahead of you)

            But if you have the 10th worst record, the chances of you selecting at position X + 3 are remote. They are beyond remote. It would require ALL OF THREE teams with lower possibilities than you (and your chances are already slim) of winning a top 3 pick to do just that. The 10th worst team getting the #13 pick has never happened. In fact, I don't think the 10th worst team has ever gotten the #12 pick.

            Even if the Pacers wind up with the 5th worst record, it's very, very unlikely they'd wind up with the 8th pick. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can't remember the last time that all of the teams with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th worst records all failed to win a top 3 pick. That's the only scenario that would have the 5th best record get the 8th pick and I'm pretty sure it's never happened.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

              Here are the odds for each seed to get specific picks if there were no ties (rounded to 3 decimal places):
              Seed Chances 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th
              1 250 .250 .215 .178 .357









              2 199 .199 .188 .171 .319 .123








              3 156 .156 .157 .156 .226 .265 .040







              4 119 .119 .126 .133 .099 .351 .160 .012






              5 88 .088 .097 .107
              .261 .360 .084 .004





              6 63 .063 .071 .081

              .439 .305 .040 .001




              7 43 .043 .049 .058


              .599 .232 .018 .000



              8 28 .028 .033 .039



              .724 .168 .008 .000


              9 17 .017 .020 .024




              .813 .122 .004 .000

              10 11 .011 .013 .016





              .870 .089 .002 .000
              11 8 .008 .009 .012






              .907 .063 .001 .000
              12 7 .007 .008 .010







              .935 .039 .000
              13 6 .006 .007 .009








              .960 .018
              14 5 .005 .006 .007









              .982
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                The difference between picking 4th. & 5th. is minimal (8.8% versus 11.9%). Moving to 3rd. would give us 15.6%. We need to all root for Golden State to pick it and hope we can end up under .300.
                This is coming from the ESPN lottery machine. I've only checked it twice but I noticed the odds change by position depending on which team holds that position. Last night the 4th. seed only showed a 10.4% chance and today it's 11.9%. I'm not sure how accurate that is.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                  I don't mind the people who aren't bothered when we lose. I am, however, getting tired of the people who come on here and **** and moan when we win, like it is a major screw-up and heads should be rolling.

                  When Michael Grady asks everyone who wants a Pacers victory to make some noise and the place is silent or even has boos mixed with the cheers, then and only then will I believe that people attending the games don't care or want the team to lose.

                  As long as the people attending the games are getting what they want - a win - I refuse to believe it is a horrible, bad thing that destroys the Pacers. There's more than just a runaway imagination that makes me feel that anyone leaving the last games this season feeling good about the time they had is likely to come back next year, and at this stage we need every one of those we can get.

                  I also don't believe the current lottery system gives the Pacers a real chance to get anything below a 3rd pick and that we are much more likely to pick 7th or 8th no matter what happens the rest of the season. Because of that, I don't think losses buy us anything but more ticked-off game attendees.

                  Note that I define tanking as purposely losing, whatever the method. It isn't just "hoping" to lose, it is taking active steps to do so.

                  I think the NBA needs to trash the lottery and go to a method that uses the records from multiple recent seasons to determine the draft position. Especially if the previous year was weighted more than the current year - not enough to make a team who went "worst to first" get a #1 pick, but enough to make tanking a riskier proposition - the incentive for tanking goes away and we stop having this stupid argument every year.

                  If the NBA would also market pride in your local team instead of focusing on the top 6 hyped players, that might help as well.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post

                    I also don't believe the current lottery system gives the Pacers a real chance to get anything below a 3rd pick and that we are much more likely to pick 7th or 8th no matter what happens the rest of the season. Because of that, I don't think losses buy us anything but more ticked-off game attendees.
                    Can you explain to me how this could happen? or you are trying to be pessimist with the pacers luck crazy talk?
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      That depends on where X is.

                      If you have the worst record in the league, you are the most likely team to be selecting at position X + 3 ( simply by the fact that you have the most teams that can jump ahead of you)

                      But if you have the 10th worst record, the chances of you selecting at position X + 3 are remote. They are beyond remote. It would require ALL OF THREE teams with lower possibilities than you (and your chances are already slim) of winning a top 3 pick to do just that. The 10th worst team getting the #13 pick has never happened. In fact, I don't think the 10th worst team has ever gotten the #12 pick.

                      Even if the Pacers wind up with the 5th worst record, it's very, very unlikely they'd wind up with the 8th pick. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can't remember the last time that all of the teams with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th worst records all failed to win a top 3 pick. That's the only scenario that would have the 5th best record get the 8th pick and I'm pretty sure it's never happened.
                      I haven't gone through it since I made this thread, but I think you can find out here:

                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=49727

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        the odds change by position depending on which team holds that position. Last night the 4th. seed only showed a 10.4% chance and today it's 11.9%. I'm not sure how accurate that is.
                        How can that happen?
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          How can that happen?
                          Weighted or differently sized ping pong balls for different teams...
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                            I don't think tanking is such a big issue, I'm always surprised it's discussed so ardently. I think the lottery is a quite functional counter-incentive. I've never seen the effect of teams not playing their best line-ups every time in the last stages of the season as such a big thing. If I were a GM, I wouldn't even suggest tanking. A good GM isn't worried with his draft position pre-lottery, that's completely beyond his control. If a lottery is the kind of stuff an executive is hanging his hat on, he probably isn't very good at his job.

                            Plus, as a fan is not worth your time to put your hopes and thoughts in the lottery. I had lots of hope in Duncan and a couple of months later was trying to find notes about Ron Mercer in my archive of SLAMs; I consumed plenty of time taking notes of Oden and Durant games and later in the Summer I was watching Youtube videos of Yi dribbling around a chair trying to convince myself he could be a star. Not worth of it; que sera, sera. Winning games works all the time.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                              Here's the fundamental issue underlying all of this: we have no substantive effect on the team.

                              Because of this, it doesn't matter if we root for them to win or lose. I think you can make a case for doing either since it won't actually affect the team. My problem is with people that suggest that my way of rooting for me is wrong.

                              Haha, this actually made me laugh. Superb.

                              Kstat, I'm not sure if we're still on the same wave-length here, but I have to remain adamant that I think you were attacking people such as myself or Hicks that want the team to lose. You said:

                              "Root for their own team to lose." That seems to imply a person, such as myself or Hicks, that hopes their own team will lose. (A stylistic note that might be at the root of some of our disagreement and might render all of the following moot: you could be suggesting that your contempt is reserved for people that root for their own team (i.e. their management) to lose (intentionally).) There is a distinction to be made here between rooting for losses and rooting for losing on purpose. In either case, you shouldn't be telling someone how to root for their team but still, it's an important distinction.

                              We root for losses, as you imply in the next sentence, because, to us, the ends justify the means. Morality is not a part for it. Yeah, maybe we're Machiavellian fans but I think it's in poor taste to criticize someone for how they root for their team (but, then again, I also think it's in poor taste to resort to ad hominem in argumentation so what do I know?).

                              We're not advocating that the team lose on purpose or throw the games. Though that does not seem to be a part of your contempt, anyways-at least how you phrase it here. And, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter, really since we don't affect the team's actions anyways.


                              I think there is a point to the season, like maybe march 1st when myself personally starts to root for my team to lose a llittle. If we had a legitimate chance to make the playoffs sure I would root for them to win. But with the standings so tight I find myself checking the ESPN ticker to find out if anybody around our standings is winning. I am paying more attention now than I did earlier in the season to the standings for sure. The difference between finishing 4th worst or 8th, 9th , or 10th is enormous. If the standings our this tight for the last couple of games if not the Pacers I bet some of the other teams would lose on purpose to help their lottery standing.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Time to Root for Pacers Losses?

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Can you explain to me how this could happen? or you are trying to be pessimist with the pacers luck crazy talk?
                                The various odds charts show you are more likely to lose a position than you are to move up or even stay the same. Without purposefully putting the worst lineup on the floor against everyone, we aren't going to go on an 0-18 streak - and, if we did, everyone in the FO would be dealing with a sh*tstorm of major proportions (again, because in no way do most or even many of the continuing fans of the Pacers believe tanking for the lottery is the right thing to do). Because of that, we will likely be about where we are now, 4th (at best) or 5th or (what I expect, though it will make people around here very angry) 6th worst based on record. Considering it is more likely to lose a position than gain one, that means drafting 5th, 6th, or 7th. My pessimistic nature says we'd be likely to lose 2 positions, meaning drafting 6th, 7th, or 8th. Take the "worst" two for the "We'll get John Wall!" crowd, and that is 7th or 8th.

                                Like I've said, I'm not going to reject it if we manage to hit the lottery, I'm just not holding my breath or basing anything on it, and I think deliberately going for it is a sucker bet.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X