The 2024-25 NBA season is approaching, and the Indiana Pacers will get going later this month. They will hope to build off of their Eastern Conference Finals run from last campaign.

They will also hope to improve as individuals. Last year, no Pacers player won any of the league’s awards, though Tyrese Haliburton was named to the All-NBA Third Team. They received votes for many of the NBA’s honors but weren’t able to bring home the hardware.

To this day, the last member of the blue and gold to earn an individual award was guard Victor Oladipo in 2018 — back then, he won the league’s Most Improved Player title. Could this be the year that an Indiana player is an award winner again? Here are some possibilities.

MVP

Haliburton has the best shot at this of any Pacer, and oddsmakers agree. The star point guard averaged 24.2 points and 12.7 assists per game last year before suffering a hamstring injury that changed his season. If he can get back to that level for an extended stretch, he could be in the MVP mix. Indiana would have to win a ton of games, too.

If the Pacers are the best team in the league and Pascal Siakam improves on his 22 points and seven rebounds per game averages, perhaps his name could come up in these discussions. But that seems close to impossible.

Rookie of the Year

While 35th overall pick Johnny Furphy showed promise during NBA summer league, the rookie forward likely won’t play much this year unless the blue and gold deal with several injuries. There is almost no path to the Pacers having a Rookie of the Year candidate in 2024-25.

Sixth Man of the Year

The Pacers had the top-scoring bench in the NBA last season, and backup point guard T.J. McConnell pulled in a few votes for Sixth Man of the Year, finishing seventh overall. He closed the season at a high level.

If McConnell plays with that increased impact for a full season, he could be in the mix for this honor. Indiana’s bench may deal with less change this year as the roster has more obvious roles, so McConnell’s ability to pair well with Obi Toppin, Isaiah Jackson, and Ben Sheppard for another season will go a long way.

That doesn’t even account for Bennedict Mathurin, who fit in with that group and is a terrific scorer off the bench. With some subtle improvements, he could become an important piece for the blue and gold, and his high-scoring style is typically rewarded in Sixth Man of the Year voting. He and McConnell are the two best candidates for this honor on the Pacers roster.

Defensive Player of the Year

If the Pacers stink on defense again, they won’t have any Defensive Player of the Year candidates. It’s that simple. If they are able to approach league average on the less glamorous end of the floor, then their top defenders — Andrew Nembhard, Myles Turner, and Aaron Nesmith — could all be considered.

Turner has the best shot both thanks to his ability and reputation. He was in All-Defense conversations in the past and is a strong rim protector. His own growth on that end of the floor could help Indiana climb back towards league average on defense.

Most Improved Player

Indiana has many less experienced players — Haliburton, Nesmith, Nembhard, Mathurin, Jackson, Sheppard, and Jarace Walker — who could in theory improve enough to be considered for this award.

Given how often they will play, their current skill set, and their experience level, Mathurin and Nembhard seem like the most likely options by far. Both could take off statistically and from an impact perspective during their third season, and if the Pacers are good, people will notice.

Coach of the Year

Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle finished eighth in this award last season. It is a regular season award, after all. His team continued to thrive in the playoffs, and if Indiana’s conference finals run could have been considered by voters, Carlisle may have finished higher.

Unfortunately for the veteran head coach, that success actually might work against him in the coming season. Coach of the Year is often given to a coach who leads his team far beyond expectations, and the Pacers will have much higher expectations in the coming campaign. They could still exceed them, but it will be more difficult.

On purely merit, though, Carlisle should be in the mix for this award. His role in setting the Pacers unique style has been undersold, and if he gets the young team to win a bunch of games again, he should be considered.

Clutch Player of the Year

Haliburton has some clutch shots in his history and will likely be the go-to guy down the stretch in big games. He is the most likely Pacers player to be in the mix for this award, but predicting the winner feels impossible.

For more discussion on these possibilities, check out the Locked On Pacers podcast.

An Indiana judge on Wednesday has ruled against abortion providers seeking to challenge the state’s near-total abortion ban.

The ruling, handed down by Monroe County Circuit Court Judge Kelsey Blake Hanlon, denies efforts by the providers, including Planned Parenthood, who sought a permanent injunction to expand medical exceptions within the ban and remove restrictions limiting abortion procedures to hospitals.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Indiana outlawed abortions except when the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy, or in instances of rape, incest and deadly fetal anomalies under limited circumstances. The law, enacted in August 2022, makes Indiana one of the most restrictive states in the U.S. regarding access to the women’s health care procedure.

In her decision on Wednesday, Hanlon, who conducted a three-day bench trial in late May, denied the providers’ request for the permanent injunction against both elements of the state law, known as S.B. 1, stating that while the court considered evidence on the impact of the law, it could not substitute the legislature’s decision-making. Hanlon, a Republican appointed to oversee the case, emphasized that the Indiana General Assembly holds the authority to shape policy on the matter.

“Significant and compelling evidence regarding the policy implications of S.B. 1 and its effect on medical professionals in particular was presented. However, the Court cannot substitute its own policy preferences for that of the Indiana General Assembly,” Hanlon wrote.

The case comes after the state’s Supreme Court upheld the ban in June 2023, but maintained that the Indiana Constitution still safeguards a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy if her life or health is at risk.

But abortion providers argue that the language in the law is so vague that many doctors are hesitant to perform abortions, even in cases that technically qualify under the exemptions.

While Hanlon, in her 50-page order, acknowledged the difficulties posed by the law’s language—particularly for doctors operating under the threat of criminal liability—and recognized that the “politically charged environment” creates challenges, she ultimately sided with the state’s argument. She said that providers did not identify a situation where the health and life exemption or the hospital requirement prevented a woman from obtaining an abortion.

Newsweek has reached out to Planned Parenthood Federation of America via email for comment on Wednesday.

The ruling also upheld the requirement that all abortions be performed in hospitals, rejecting the providers’ plea to allow outpatient clinics to offer the procedure, stating that hospitals are better equipped to manage cases involving serious health risks, fetal anomalies and cases of rape or incest.

“The evidence demonstrates that many women receiving abortion care when they are seriously ill or at risk of becoming seriously ill will likely be receiving in-hospital care irrespective of the hospital requirement,” Hanlon wrote.

In response to the ruling, Planned Parenthood Federation of America warned in a joint statement with the ACLU of Indiana and other plaintiffs that the court’s ruling means “lives will continue to be endangered by Indiana’s abortion ban,” adding that they “are still evaluating all options” on whether or not they will appeal the ruling.

“Already, Hoosiers with serious health complications have been forced to endure unjustifiable suffering due to miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other pregnancy-related issues or leave the state to access appropriate care,” the statement said.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita praised the decision, calling the state’s abortion law both “reasonable and constitutional.”

Abortion has been a key issue for the Republican and Democratic campaigns as former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris vie for the presidency.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, many Republican-controlled states have enacted abortion restrictions, with 21 states banning or restricting the medical practice at every stage of pregnancy.

This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana county judge ruled Wednesday against abortion providers who are seeking to broaden access to the procedure under the near-total ban state lawmakers passed after the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal protections in 2022.

The providers — including the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate — had sought a permanent injunction to expand the near-total ban’s medical exemptions and to block its requirement that abortions can only be performed at hospitals.

Judge Kelsey Blake Hanlon, who conducted a three-day bench trial in late May in southern Indiana’s Monroe County, denied the providers’ request for the permanent injunction against both elements of the state’s law, known as S.B. 1.

“Significant and compelling evidence regarding the policy implications of S.B. 1 and its effect on medical professionals in particular was presented. However, the Court cannot substitute its own policy preferences for that of the Indiana General Assembly,” Hanlon wrote.

The providers are likely to appeal the ruling by Hanlon, an elected Republican from a different county who was appointed as a special judge in the case.

Indiana became the first state to enact tighter restrictions after the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections by overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Rare exceptions to the near-total ban include when the health or life of the mother is at risk as well as in cases of rape, incest and lethal fetal anomalies in limited circumstances.

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban in June 2023, ending a broader legal challenge brought by the same plaintiffs, but said the state’s constitution protects a women’s right to an abortion when her life or health is at risk.

Indiana’s clinics stopped providing abortions ahead of the ban officially taking effect in August 2023.

The providers said that the ban’s exceptions for protecting health are written so narrowly that in practice, many doctors won’t end a pregnancy even when a woman’s condition qualifies under the statute. The state defended the statute and said it sufficiently protects women when health complications arise in pregnancy.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita praised the judge’s ruling Wednesday. “Indiana’s pro-life law is both reasonable and constitutional, and we’re pleased the Monroe County Circuit Court upheld it,” he said in a statement.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Indiana did not immediately respond Wednesday to requests for comment on the ruling.

In a 50-page order, Hanlon said providers gave hypothetical scenarios but did not identify a situation where the health and life exemption or the hospital requirement prevented a woman from obtaining an abortion.

Hanlon agreed with the state’s argument that the health and life exemption constitutionally protects pregnant patients with “serious health risks,” but acknowledged the ill-defined standard has been challenging for physicians in a “politically charged environment” and under the threat of criminal liability. However, Hanlon said physicians do not have to wait until a woman is “clinically unstable to provide care.”

She wrote that some conditions outlined by the providers can be treated with interventions other than abortion depending on the severity of the health risk, such as medication, therapy and nutritional changes. She also rejected the argument from the providers that mental health conditions constitute serious health risks.

In rejecting the providers’ request to strike the hospital requirement, Hanlon said hospitals are better equipped to handle lethal fetal anomaly, rape, incest and serious health risks.

“The evidence demonstrates that many women receiving abortion care when they are seriously ill or at risk of becoming seriously ill will likely be receiving in-hospital care irrespective of the hospital requirement,” she wrote.

__

Volmert reported from Lansing, Michigan.