PDA

View Full Version : Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 2/23/13



Trophy
02-23-2013, 10:55 PM
Who else has been in a great mood lately? :dance::happydanc

...AND WELCOME BACK #33!

http://i46.tinypic.com/358rjnp.png
(Courtesy of NBA.com)

Coupe
02-23-2013, 10:55 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/J---aiyznGQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


that's all

rock747
02-23-2013, 10:56 PM
Play them off keyboard cat

mousewilliams999
02-23-2013, 10:57 PM
Ugly game, didn't expect much more out of Granger. Quality win, Pacers are dangerous!

Pace Maker
02-23-2013, 10:59 PM
I like how we can beat teams in different ways.

Yesterday we drop 125 and run them out of the building, today we played a really ugly, offensive handicapped game and still win comfortably.

(ofc it doesn't hurt that its the Pistons but still)

Steagles
02-23-2013, 10:59 PM
Ugly game, didn't expect much more out of Granger. Quality win, Pacers are dangerous!

This.


Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk

BornReady
02-23-2013, 11:01 PM
I know this has nothing to do with the Pacers, but watching this right after that awesome win made this video that much more funny!!!!! Good job Pacers :) :) :)

http://youtu.be/cpfQSqfpuac

Pacerfan
02-23-2013, 11:01 PM
What did Danny say for all of us that got the Pistons feed?

ECKrueger
02-23-2013, 11:03 PM
Conrad Brunner ‏@1070Bruno

Hibbert gives Granger a big hug, presumably because Roy now has the 2nd-lowest shooting percentage on the team.

:laugh:

ksuttonjr76
02-23-2013, 11:07 PM
Does anyone else think that Charlie V looks "crazy" at times?

Sent from my XT901 using Tapatalk 2

AesopRockOn
02-23-2013, 11:07 PM
First person with the bench reaction to Danny's made shot gets two million internet points.

Trader Joe
02-23-2013, 11:09 PM
Did DJ Augustin get hit in the face as the bench ran out to greet Danny? LOL

Lance George
02-23-2013, 11:12 PM
Does anyone else think that Charlie V looks "crazy" at times?

Sent from my XT901 using Tapatalk 2

I don't know if crazy's the word for it, but I noticed that he seemed mopey all game.

Mo Tibbs
02-23-2013, 11:15 PM
I don't know if crazy's the word for it, but I noticed that he seemed mopey all game.

He always looks mopey.

BornReady
02-23-2013, 11:16 PM
Does anyone else think that Charlie V looks "crazy" at times?

Sent from my XT901 using Tapatalk 2

Haha I mean, I'd be pissed too if I got my butt kicked that hard by the Pacers bigmen :P

Dr. Awesome
02-23-2013, 11:19 PM
I was at work and couldn't watch the game. I wasn't expecting much from him tonight, but I'm really disliking the amount of shots he took. Did it look like he was trying to re-establish himself as the man or simply trying to get back into rhythm since we had a comfortable lead?

BornReady
02-23-2013, 11:21 PM
I was at work and couldn't watch the game. I wasn't expecting much from him tonight, but I'm really disliking the amount of shots he took. Did it look like he was trying to re-establish himself as the man or simply trying to get back into rhythm since we had a comfortable lead?

He wasn't forcing. The shots he took were good ones - they just didn't go in

Nuntius
02-23-2013, 11:22 PM
I was at work and couldn't watch the game. I wasn't expecting much from him tonight, but I'm really disliking the amount of shots he took. Did it look like he was trying to re-establish himself as the man or simply trying to get back into rhythm since we had a comfortable lead?

He was simply trying to get back into rhythm when we had a comfortable lead. Most of the shots he took where alongside DJ and the 2nd unit.

Paul George tried to hit him twice on the break in order to get him to score his first basket. It worked in the second time. The reaction was great :D

DJVendetta
02-23-2013, 11:22 PM
I had my moms birthday dinner to go to during the game and like a selfish son I was sad I didn't get to see Granger come back. I'm glad he scored once though, I really figured it would be an ugly game shooting wise in game speed.

Mo Tibbs
02-23-2013, 11:22 PM
I didn't notice anything. If he took any bad shots it had to only be one or two. But I don't remember any. I think he was just trying to find his shot. The team as a whole didn't shoot well tonight IMO.

cgg
02-23-2013, 11:23 PM
I was at work and couldn't watch the game. I wasn't expecting much from him tonight, but I'm really disliking the amount of shots he took. Did it look like he was trying to re-establish himself as the man or simply trying to get back into rhythm since we had a comfortable lead?

He took good shots that he normally makes. He was good on defense and boxing out. He got through screens well.

I thought his presence as a help defender compared to Lance is pretty big. I guess that should be expected since he's big and strong, but it stood out to me.

cgg
02-23-2013, 11:25 PM
If anything, I think he was a bit hesitant a few times.

BlueCollarColts
02-23-2013, 11:38 PM
what stood out to me is that when Paul and Danny played together it looked like Paul played the 3 the majority of the time, though they did switch off

Nuntius
02-23-2013, 11:40 PM
If anything, I think he was a bit hesitant a few times.

Yep, he got an open corner 3 but instead chose to drive to get a better look and then passed.

tadscout
02-23-2013, 11:40 PM
what stood out to me is that when Paul and Danny played together it looked like Paul played the 3 the majority of the time, though they did switch off

Vogel said pre-game Danny would be the 2 on offense, when he and PG are on the court together.

graphic-er
02-23-2013, 11:41 PM
Paul George needs to stop being cute with the ball. Good Lord. Turn over machine right now.

Happy that Danny is back. You could tell he was nervous, but he didn't really hurt the team at any point.

cgg
02-23-2013, 11:42 PM
Yep, he got an open corner 3 but instead chose to drive to get a better look and then passed.

It was an okay decision considering he hadn't made a shot yet. It just seemed a bit slow. Not physically slow, but decision making slow. Pretty much what you expect to see I guess.

Indra
02-23-2013, 11:46 PM
I watched quite a bit of the game instead of working, and I don't feel like Danny took anything that wasn't there. In fact guys were trying to find him (a little bit too much at times) to get him good shots, and he didn't take every shot he could have. I liked the way Danny played tonight. If he were on target tonight he would have had 15 points probably. All good looks.

The Future
02-23-2013, 11:49 PM
Vogel said pre-game Danny would be the 2 on offense, when he and PG are on the court together.

George will be guarding the 2 guards, so I believe hes playing the SG position in my mind with Granger on the court.

Hoop
02-23-2013, 11:50 PM
PG has had 12 turnovers in the last 2 games. Hard to find many faults, but he can not continue to do that. Please, clean that up Paul.

cgg
02-23-2013, 11:51 PM
George will be guarding the 2 guards, so I believe hes playing the SG position in my mind with Granger on the court.

He will guard that player that he needs to guard, regardless of position.

Hoop
02-23-2013, 11:54 PM
George will be guarding the 2 guards, so I believe hes playing the SG position in my mind with Granger on the court.Paul will guard the tougher guy, which ever wing that happens to be game to game. It'll always be a game to game situation I believe. SG and SF labels mean nothing.

Trader Joe
02-23-2013, 11:54 PM
One thing no one has mentioned.

Danny picked up two fouls on the Detroit D in about a 3 minute span with his off the ball movement.

rock747
02-23-2013, 11:56 PM
Paul George needs to stop being cute with the ball. Good Lord. Turn over machine right now.

Happy that Danny is back. You could tell he was nervous, but he didn't really hurt the team at any point.

Thank you

cgg
02-23-2013, 11:58 PM
One thing no one has mentioned.

Danny picked up two fouls on the Detroit D in about a 3 minute span with his off the ball movement.

They seemed to put a lot of effort into trying to stop him from going to where he wanted to go. I doubt teams put that kind of effort into defending Lance.

Also there was one play where they ran him through two screens on defense and he got stayed with him man really well.

There was another play where he helped and his guy made a 3. I think two people might have helped, so I'm not sure if he made the right decision.

dr_teeth87
02-24-2013, 12:04 AM
The 3 that Hill hit at the end of the game, that was the best d Calderon has played all season.

lolwuttermelons
02-24-2013, 12:06 AM
Doesn't it usually like a dozen+ games each season for Granger to find his shot? If that holds up, he should be nice and hot come playoff time :D

Nuntius
02-24-2013, 12:15 AM
It was an okay decision considering he hadn't made a shot yet. It just seemed a bit slow. Not physically slow, but decision making slow. Pretty much what you expect to see I guess.

Yeah, it wasn't a bad decision. He tried to create something easier, it wasn't there and passed out.

cgg
02-24-2013, 12:23 AM
http://i.imgur.com/V5pI5iZ.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/3fj3qMn.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/eEaPrtt.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/MW4Okwm.png

dohman
02-24-2013, 12:25 AM
http://i.imgur.com/V5pI5iZ.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/3fj3qMn.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/eEaPrtt.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/MW4Okwm.png
p
good looks. Just looks like nerves got to him.

Pacerized
02-24-2013, 12:29 AM
good looks. Just looks like nerves got to him.

I think you're right that's what it looked like to me. I just want him to keep taking those shots. Once he gets on a role he'll get comfortable in no time.

Sandman21
02-24-2013, 12:33 AM
that was a road game in name only. we literally did a Bulls fans invasion, Pacers fans EVERYWHERE haha. we even had a Palace security guy hanging with us... for the fun of it!

Goyle
02-24-2013, 12:35 AM
Yeah, it wasn't a bad decision. He tried to create something easier, it wasn't there and passed out.

Definitely not a bad decision, odd to see HIM pass that up. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't been this nervous playing in his life.

Good sign: he ran into the crowd going for a loose ball and turned out okay, stuff like that is always terrifying to me

cgg
02-24-2013, 12:35 AM
that was a road game in name only. we literally did a Bulls fans invasion, Pacers fans EVERYWHERE haha. we even had a Palace security guy hanging with us... for the fun of it!

Can it be done in bulls playoff games?!

Kstat
02-24-2013, 12:39 AM
Had to work tonight, so I was unable to spend more time with my mother in law, or watch most of this wonderful game...

We suck. A lot of guys just don't have their heads in the game lately (not just against indiana; we got crushed at home much worse than this by new Orleans last week.) guessing that it's sunk in that were lottery bound again, and guys are starting to play for stats.

On the bright side, I was happy to see khris Middleton get time. I love singler, but he's a glue guy long term. We need someone that can make a basket on the wing.

Maxiell is having the worst contract season ever. My god he is long money by the day.

The pacers won both of these games pretty much how i expected them to. They're just better, and now healthier to boot.

AesopRockOn
02-24-2013, 12:46 AM
While we're doing hastily made caps.

http://i.imgur.com/PsxxJf4.png

PacersPride
02-24-2013, 12:46 AM
good game. enjoy seeing us beat detroit. strange correlation with those guys and one more reason to see them lose.

late 80's early 90's pistons fade. Pacers go on and become elite from 94-03. 03 forward we suck and pistons win a championship.

even stranger. we played them n plyaoffs 90's and decline begins for them. our first of many playoff appearances. 04 we meet in playoffs and they go on.. we then suck.

hopefully Detroit continues to suck. not a fan of that franchise. least liked team in the central. moreso than the bulls and bucks.

good win.

Nuntius
02-24-2013, 12:47 AM
Maxiell is having the worst contract season ever. My god he is long money by the day.

Yeah, he's painful to watch. I used to like Maxiell and his passion. But now he gets outplayed by almost everyone.

Slava Kravtsov has outplayed him in both games.

Kstat
02-24-2013, 12:48 AM
Yeah, he's painful to watch. I used to like Maxiell and his passion. But now he gets outplayed by almost everyone.

Slava Kravtsov has outplayed him in both games.

The real kick in the *** was the report that Drummond was slated to replace him in the starting lineup the game after he broke his tailbone. He's probably going to start the full 82 now.

Nuntius
02-24-2013, 01:10 AM
The real kick in the *** was the report that Drummond was slated to replace him in the starting lineup the game after he broke his tailbone. He's probably going to start the full 82 now.

Damn, that sucks. Drummond's injury really came at the worst possible time for you, guys :(

Sandman21
02-24-2013, 01:24 AM
Had to work tonight, so I was unable to spend more time with my mother in law, or watch most of this wonderful game...

We suck. A lot of guys just don't have their heads in the game lately (not just against indiana; we got crushed at home much worse than this by new Orleans last week.) guessing that it's sunk in that were lottery bound again, and guys are starting to play for stats.

On the bright side, I was happy to see khris Middleton get time. I love singler, but he's a glue guy long term. We need someone that can make a basket on the wing.

Maxiell is having the worst contract season ever. My god he is long money by the day.

The pacers won both of these games pretty much how i expected them to. They're just better, and now healthier to boot.

i know this had no bearing on the game, but i noticed that Detroit players were throwing shirts into the crowd during warmups instead of, well warming up. if i had just been whupped on the night before in a home and home, i think throwing shirts to the crowd would be awful on the priority list.

PacersHomer
02-24-2013, 02:39 AM
Deeeeetroit basketball

Sandman21
02-24-2013, 02:49 AM
Deeeeetroit basketball

LOL once their fans caught onto us, theyd chant that all the time... when Detroit scored, when Indiana scored, when Detroit turned it over (which cracked me up), then all they could fall back on was their banners that are almost a decade old at best. No wonder their Power Plant knockoff squad failed. No originality.

Kstat
02-24-2013, 03:06 AM
LOL once their fans caught onto us, theyd chant that all the time... when Detroit scored, when Indiana scored, when Detroit turned it over (which cracked me up), then all they could fall back on was their banners that are almost a decade old at best. No wonder their Power Plant knockoff squad failed. No originality.

Of course they were going to point to the banners. What were they supposed to say? We got our *** kicked tonight. The winning teams fans are always going to be trash talking gods in a blowout.

Hey, when you don't fill your own arena, you can't complain about other fans scooping tickets up and rubbing your nose in their victory. We did it to other teams for decades when the shoe was on the other foot. Its fun most of the time, but I've yet to hear anyone come up with something great to say while getting beaten down by a superior team.

Eddie Gill
02-24-2013, 03:16 AM
LOL once their fans caught onto us, theyd chant that all the time... when Detroit scored, when Indiana scored, when Detroit turned it over (which cracked me up), then all they could fall back on was their banners that are almost a decade old at best. No wonder their Power Plant knockoff squad failed. No originality.


Fancode #123: If you have championships to fall back on, there is no shame in doing so (See Indiana Hoosiers, 1988-present).

Kstat
02-24-2013, 03:19 AM
Fancode #123: If you have championships to fall back on, there is no shame in doing so (See Indiana Hoosiers, 1988-present).

Fancode #124: it's only classless when its someone else doing it...:laugh:

ECKrueger
02-24-2013, 03:30 AM
Fancode #123: If you have championships to fall back on, there is no shame in doing so (See Indiana Hoosiers, 1988-present).

I was waiting for that. I can see some similarities in Det/Ind and iu/Purdue in that regard. Pacers have the ABA and we have the whatever the pre-tourney banner is. Meanwhile iu and Det have several banners.

Sandman21
02-24-2013, 03:35 AM
Of course they were going to point to the banners. What were they supposed to say? We got our *** kicked tonight. The winning teams fans are always going to be trash talking gods in a blowout.

Hey, when you don't fill your own arena, you can't complain about other fans scooping tickets up and rubbing your nose in their victory. We did it to other teams for decades when the shoe was on the other foot. Its fun most of the time, but I've yet to hear anyone come up with something great to say while getting beaten down by a superior team.

i dont know, i thought the guy who called me Harry Potter was pretty funny.... XD

i just thought it was funny how seemingly the entire arena stopped watching the game and started chanting at us LOL

Heisenberg
02-24-2013, 05:27 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Elias Says Pacers are the 1st team to win 4 straight games by a combined total of 108+ points since the Magic in 2001 <a href="http://t.co/VV2ouLbX3v" title="http://es.pn/WjgLlN">es.pn/WjgLlN</a></p>&mdash; ESPN Stats &amp; Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/305611329945886720">February 24, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Fun with numbers!

McKeyFan
02-24-2013, 07:16 AM
good game. enjoy seeing us beat detroit. strange correlation with those guys and one more reason to see them lose.

late 80's early 90's pistons fade. Pacers go on and become elite from 94-03. 03 forward we suck and pistons win a championship.

even stranger. we played them n plyaoffs 90's and decline begins for them. our first of many playoff appearances. 04 we meet in playoffs and they go on.. we then suck.

hopefully Detroit continues to suck. not a fan of that franchise. least liked team in the central. moreso than the bulls and bucks.

good win.
I'd like to hear Kstat weigh in here, but I think we are approaching the level of great D the Pistons had ten years ago (approaching, not there). The interesting difference being that their strength was all around but especially in the front court. Our strength is out of the perimeter, where the game has gradually moved in the past ten to fifteen years.

Kstat
02-24-2013, 07:18 AM
I'd like to hear Kstat weigh in here, but I think we are approaching the level of great D the Pistons had ten years ago (approaching, not there). The interesting difference being that their strength was all around but especially in the front court. Our strength is out of the perimeter, where the game has gradually moved in the past ten to fifteen years.

They have a chance to be in the same conversation, but there has to be a championship at the end of the story. That's a must.

Cousy47
02-24-2013, 09:49 AM
Definitely not a bad decision, odd to see HIM pass that up. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't been this nervous playing in his life.

Good sign: he ran into the crowd going for a loose ball and turned out okay, stuff like that is always terrifying to me
I was surprised by that AND the reaction of the fans. Seemed they were patting him on the back and laughing with him and helping him up. In Detroit?!

TheDon
02-24-2013, 10:04 AM
We suck. A lot of guys

:twss:

Sollozzo
02-24-2013, 10:39 AM
Fancode #123: If you have championships to fall back on, there is no shame in doing so (See Indiana Hoosiers, 1988-present).


No doubt. The Colts 2006 championship definitely made me more cocky as a fan. For six years, it's been the trump card against any trash talk by a Texans, Titans, Jaguars, Jets fan, etc. I don't fault Detroit for bragging about their banners. Three championships in a sixteen year span is impressive. The 2004 one isn't really that old either. A Piston fan bragging about that is really no different than a Colts fan bragging about the Super Bowl which was won just a few years later.

MagicRat
02-24-2013, 11:40 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u8kpPhIVNMA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

hoosierguy
02-24-2013, 12:19 PM
Fancode #123: If you have championships to fall back on, there is no shame in doing so (See Indiana Hoosiers, 1988-present).

Purude fans can pathetically only fall back on their Sweet Sixteens and Elite Eights. They really have nothing to cheer them up when they suck.

BornReady
02-24-2013, 12:35 PM
I said this before, I'll say it again. I want DJ to take more shots when he plays - dude's money from 3 and I feel like he has far more open looks than the number of shots he takes.

Hicks
02-24-2013, 12:46 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u8kpPhIVNMA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nothing screams "Bad Boys 2013" like a bunch of guys giving their returning teammate a bunch of smiles and hugs after his first make in 8 attempts.

Justin Tyme
02-24-2013, 12:50 PM
Paul George needs to stop being cute with the ball. Good Lord. Turn over machine right now.

Happy that Danny is back. You could tell he was nervous, but he didn't really hurt the team at any point.


It's nothing new with PG. He's made bad passes and TO's all season. He does so many other things so good his TO's get overlooked when he's having TO problems. The leash is so much longer on PG than Lance when it comes to TO's. Then PG is far the better player, so things are viewed differently.

aamcguy
02-24-2013, 12:53 PM
Purude fans can pathetically only fall back on their Sweet Sixteens and Elite Eights. They really have nothing to cheer them up when they suck.

You must hate it when the Pacers suck, since the Pacers haven't even an (NBA) championship. The same statement applies to Purdue, just change the leagues. ;)

cgg
02-24-2013, 12:59 PM
You must hate it when the Pacers suck, since the Pacers haven't even an (NBA) championship. The same statement applies to Purdue, just change the leagues. ;)

At least our last ABA championship is the same year as the Knicks last championship.

aamcguy
02-24-2013, 01:26 PM
At least our last ABA championship is the same year as the Knicks last championship.

Well either history matters significantly or it doesn't. IMO championships are an important but incredibly imperfect measurement of success for any sport. I think they are less useful when using them as support in an argument on current teams, which happens a lot.

I am a Purdue student but I root for all Indiana teams in the tourney. I don't really get the whole "you can only be a fan of one or the other" thing when it comes to amateur athletics. In a game between the two I root for Purdue but I have a hard time getting attached to any team where there's no real continuity in the team or the league.

pogi
02-24-2013, 01:29 PM
I know this has nothing to do with the Pacers, but watching this right after that awesome win made this video that much more funny!!!!! Good job Pacers :) :) :)

http://youtu.be/cpfQSqfpuac

I can't stop laughing. Maybe it's the kid in me.....

Cousy47
02-24-2013, 01:55 PM
Dy anny was about what I expected last night. Too pumped up and everything he shot was long. When he hit the one open jumper, you would have thought he just won the Championship by his teammate's reaction.

Ace E.Anderson
02-24-2013, 02:25 PM
One of, if not my biggest take away from this game was how much everyone on the team was excited for Danny to be back. His teammates seem to genuinely love the guy, and are excited to have him back. ESP Paul and George.

He and Paul's chemistry looked good both offensively and defensively, he just missed the good looks he had available to him. Athletically he looked the same, and he didn't seem fatigued so I think he's in pretty good shape as well.

Excited that 33 is back

BornReady
02-24-2013, 08:49 PM
Marc J. Spears ‏@SpearsNBAYahoo
Pistons guard Will Bynum suspended one game without pay for striking Pacers forward Tyler Hansbrough in the stomach.

A-Train
02-24-2013, 08:56 PM
Well either history matters significantly or it doesn't. IMO championships are an important but incredibly imperfect measurement of success for any sport. I think they are less useful when using them as support in an argument on current teams, which happens a lot.

I am a Purdue student but I root for all Indiana teams in the tourney. I don't really get the whole "you can only be a fan of one or the other" thing when it comes to amateur athletics. In a game between the two I root for Purdue but I have a hard time getting attached to any team where there's no real continuity in the team or the league.

Did you grow up in Indiana?

aamcguy
02-24-2013, 09:01 PM
Did you grow up in Indiana?

Sure did. :)

A-Train
02-24-2013, 09:05 PM
Sure did. :)

Just wondered, because most Hoosiers (in the generic sense) get drawing a line between IU and Purdue. I get where you're coming from, though.

shags
02-24-2013, 09:17 PM
Marc J. Spears ‏@SpearsNBAYahoo
Pistons guard Will Bynum suspended one game without pay for striking Pacers forward Tyler Hansbrough in the stomach.

Not surprised. That was a clear punch and looked intentional, I don't care what Bynum or Frank say.

King Tuts Tomb
02-24-2013, 11:39 PM
They have a chance to be in the same conversation, but there has to be a championship at the end of the story. That's a must.

Why is this necessarily true?

Kstat
02-25-2013, 01:01 AM
Why is this necessarily true?

Because that's the standard for greatness. You can't compare a champion to a non champion. If you didn't win a championship, that means at some point your defense failed when it mattered the most.

Trader Joe
02-25-2013, 01:05 AM
Because that's the standard for greatness. You can't compare a champion to a non champion. If you didn't win a championship, that means at some point your defense failed when it mattered the most.

Or it just means our offense was that bad.

King Tuts Tomb
02-25-2013, 01:59 AM
Because that's the standard for greatness. You can't compare a champion to a non champion. If you didn't win a championship, that means at some point your defense failed when it mattered the most.

Is that also true for offense?

MUpaceSIC
02-25-2013, 02:20 AM
Well either history matters significantly or it doesn't. IMO championships are an important but incredibly imperfect measurement of success for any sport. I think they are less useful when using them as support in an argument on current teams, which happens a lot.

I am a Purdue student but I root for all Indiana teams in the tourney. I don't really get the whole "you can only be a fan of one or the other" thing when it comes to amateur athletics. In a game between the two I root for Purdue but I have a hard time getting attached to any team where there's no real continuity in the team or the league.


I agree 100% on this! I am a huge fan of all Indiana athletics, and I do not see why that is an issue. I am a proud member of the hoosier state, and that includes every school, team, organization, etc. from Evansville to South Bend.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 02:27 AM
Or it just means our offense was that bad.

The mark of a great defense is to be able to win a game when your offense is broken. That's what separates very good from great.

It's a higher standard. That's why winning a championship is a prerequisite.

aamcguy
02-25-2013, 02:36 AM
Because that's the standard for greatness. You can't compare a champion to a non champion. If you didn't win a championship, that means at some point your defense failed when it mattered the most.

With that logic, the team that wins the championship every year is the best defensive team. Since, you know, you can't compare them to the other non-champions in the league. Which is fine, but then all you're really saying is that they're the best defensive team in the league that also won the championship.

The champion is just that; the winner of the postseason tournament.

aamcguy
02-25-2013, 02:41 AM
The mark of a great defense is to be able to win a game when your offense is broken. That's what separates very good from great.

It's a higher standard. That's why winning a championship is a prerequisite.

Just because it's a higher standard doesn't mean that a championship is a prerequisite. The championship is only a "prerequisite" if you need to make an arbitrary rule to protect your team from being compared to other teams.

Also, in Detroit's championship years from 1989 to 1990 they averaged 109 and 105 ppg in the NBA finals. Those numbers don't mean the same thing they do now, but they were not instances of their offense failing.

spazzxb
02-25-2013, 02:57 AM
Just wondered, because most Hoosiers (in the generic sense) get drawing a line between IU and Purdue. I get where you're coming from, though.

I have an IU MBA and am currently enrolled as a grad student at Purdue. However, I was raised a Purdue fan and can remember a hardcore rivalry in my parents church choir.

Also, my dad was a teacher. I remember a certain whiteboard drawing, in the high school teachers lounge, depicting a guy in a IU jersey, defacing the Purdue logo. My father drew a car battery and attached it to the iu player. It was about the coolest thing my dad ever did. I root for local teams regardless, but the rare occasion when they play each other I am still a boilermaker at heart.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

Kstat
02-25-2013, 03:05 AM
With that logic, the team that wins the championship every year is the best defensive team. Since, you know, you can't compare them to the other non-champions in the league. Which is fine, but then all you're really saying is that they're the best defensive team in the league that also won the championship.

The champion is just that; the winner of the postseason tournament.

The champion is the best of that season. The tournament is designed to determine that. Not all champions win with defense, but all that means is there were no historically great defenses that season.

King Tuts Tomb
02-25-2013, 03:10 AM
The champion is the best of that season. The tournament is designed to determine that. Not all champions win with defense, but all that means is there were no historically great defenses that season.

And couldn't a historically great defense be attached to an equally bad offense and not win the championship?

Kstat
02-25-2013, 03:18 AM
And couldn't a historically great defense be attached to an equally bad offense and not win the championship?

No. That's why there's a standard.

Name me a great nfl defense. Heck, name me five. They all won superbowls.

King Tuts Tomb
02-25-2013, 03:25 AM
No. That's why there's a standard.

Name me a great nfl defense. Heck, name me five. They all won superbowls.

So what you're saying is that if there's a historically great defense then they will win the NBA championship no matter what, correct?

I truthfully have no clue, I don't look too much into advanced stats. I don't really care if the Pacers are considered a great defense or not. I'm just curious how people decide on these somewhat arbitrary seeming distinctions.

King Tuts Tomb
02-25-2013, 03:34 AM
As for the NFL defenses, I did a quick Google search and got a couple links. I don't follow much football but most of the teams listed here as best defenses didn't win Super Bowls.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/final-2012-dvoa-ratings

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2008/fo-mailbag-best-defense-never-win-title

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-greatest-defenses-the-super-bowl-era/5039/

aamcguy
02-25-2013, 03:47 AM
The champion is the best of that season. The tournament is designed to determine that. Not all champions win with defense, but all that means is there were no historically great defenses that season.

What you're doing is akin to describing the characteristics of an apple and using those characteristics as the only measurements in determining whether something is a fruit. While correct, it's not the whole picture. If you want to compare two defenses, the better defense will always be better regardless of whether or not one has a championship tag on it.

In a vacuum, your championship metric would be a good application. But the league is different every year. And the playoffs aren't designed to determine the best team; they're designed to determine a winner. I think you would have a better argument if playoffs were done in a round-robin style. But they're matchups where different teams have easier paths.

aamcguy
02-25-2013, 04:11 AM
I'm going to bed, but I want to put out a scenario for you to ponder. It's hypothetical, sure, but since you have a rigid definition this works.

Next season, the Pistons improve greatly. IN a league where the league average points per game is 95, the Pistons are only allowing 75 points per game. They are only scoring 80 points per game, with a horrible FG% (Drummond has taken to shooting 3 pointers). They come in as a number 1 seed, don't lose a single game in the playoffs until the finals. In the playoffs they've upped their effort and are allowing only 70 ppg. They're 3-3 leading up until the final game. They're winning by 1, and Kevin Durant drives to the basket and puts up a shot as time expires as he charges over Greg Monroe head on. Monroe was standing completely still with his arms straight up in the air. A blocking foul is whistled. Durant makes both free throws and the Pistons are not NBA champions.

Now even though they should have won the championship, they didn't. And according to your definition, they can't be in the conversation with other great defenses because they didn't win it all. Despite holding opponents to a ridiculous scoring level over an 82 game season + the postseason.

This is the kind of problem that arises by allowing 1 non-related fact to determine whether or not certain teams qualify. I'll admit what I posted is the extreme case, but it is not inconceivable that a blown call or a lucky 3 pointer from 65 feet away would determine the ultimate outcome of a 7 game series.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 04:35 AM
I'm going to bed, but I want to put out a scenario for you to ponder. It's hypothetical, sure, but since you have a rigid definition this works.

Next season, the Pistons improve greatly. IN a league where the league average points per game is 95, the Pistons are only allowing 75 points per game. They are only scoring 80 points per game, with a horrible FG% (Drummond has taken to shooting 3 pointers). They come in as a number 1 seed, don't lose a single game in the playoffs until the finals. In the playoffs they've upped their effort and are allowing only 70 ppg. They're 3-3 leading up until the final game. They're winning by 1, and Kevin Durant drives to the basket and puts up a shot as time expires as he charges over Greg Monroe head on. Monroe was standing completely still with his arms straight up in the air. A blocking foul is whistled. Durant makes both free throws and the Pistons are not NBA champions.

Now even though they should have won the championship, they didn't. And according to your definition, they can't be in the conversation with other great defenses because they didn't win it all. Despite holding opponents to a ridiculous scoring level over an 82 game season + the postseason.

This is the kind of problem that arises by allowing 1 non-related fact to determine whether or not certain teams qualify. I'll admit what I posted is the extreme case, but it is not inconceivable that a blown call or a lucky 3 pointer from 65 feet away would determine the ultimate outcome of a 7 game series.

Actually, if the game has come down to a single play, there were many instances prior where their defense could have stopped the other team, but didn't.

A pet peeve of mine has always been to blame an entire game on one bad call at the end. I'm not saying that everything is always 100% fair, but I have yet to see a team play a perfect game and lose because of a referee. Take care of business in the first three quarters, and then you don't have to worry about it.

Bad calls suck, but that does not absolve the victimized team of allowing the game to be decided by one whistle.

I have the same reaction to people that whine the pistons lost the 1988 finals because of one phantom foul on laimbeer with 20 second left in game six. Bull ****. We lost because we cracked under pressure in the last two minutes and stopped being aggressive on offense.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 04:47 AM
What you're doing is akin to describing the characteristics of an apple and using those characteristics as the only measurements in determining whether something is a fruit. While correct, it's not the whole picture. If you want to compare two defenses, the better defense will always be better regardless of whether or not one has a championship tag on it.

In a vacuum, your championship metric would be a good application. But the league is different every year. And the playoffs aren't designed to determine the best team; they're designed to determine a winner. I think you would have a better argument if playoffs were done in a round-robin style. But they're matchups where different teams have easier paths.

We have a round Robin. That's what the regular season is for. The field gets narrowed down from 30 to 16 and from there, we have a tournament, and the champion directly or indirectly stands above the other 15 at the end.

Every team in the nba knows before the season even starts, that the champion is going to be crowned in June so, every team gears their entire season to peak during late spring. This is not an accident. The team left standing in June does not get the "NBA tournament trophy," they get the title of NBA Champions, and deservedly so.

And yes, the league is different every year, which is why we compare champions from different eras to try and determine who was the best ever. But the title is what gets you into the conversation in the first place. Can't be called the best ever if you couldn't even dominate your own season.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 06:22 AM
As for the NFL defenses, I did a quick Google search and got a couple links. I don't follow much football but most of the teams listed here as best defenses didn't win Super Bowls.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/final-2012-dvoa-ratings

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2008/fo-mailbag-best-defense-never-win-title

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-greatest-defenses-the-super-bowl-era/5039/
I'd qualify that list by saying any calculation that does not include the 2000 baltimore ravens in the top 20 defenses of the superbowl era is deeply flawed and should be dismissed as such. That team went an entire month without scoring a touchdown of any kind and still won twice.

In any case, this is my point. In discussions of the best NFL defenses ever, several names come up: the Steel Curtain Steelers, the 85 Bears, and the 00 Ravens. Now and then, you'll see someone throw the 77 Cowboys or the 84 49ers in the mix. Point is, any team that didn't win a superbowl is forever dismissed, regardless of statistical accomplishments. Stats are the window dressing, but they're ultimately empty without the championship to give them meaning.

Take the 1986 Chicago Bears, for example. By many statistical measurements, they were defensively superior to the 1985 bears. They actually allowed fewer point than the year before. Yet every player on that defense to a man will tell you that defense was drastically inferior to the season before, because they lost in the playoffs.

In the NBA, this is true of any facet of the game. To be in the discussion for the best ever, you need to have been a champion at some point.

The original question I was posed was comparing the 2013 pacers defense to the 2004 Pistons. Well, that Pistons team, whether you agree that they are the best ever or not, is at the very least in the discussion.

I think the Pacers are good enough to be in the discussion as well, but we haven't reached the playoffs yet. We'll find out in April, May and possibly June if they're one of the best defenses of all time, or simply a very good defense that could go in the "best defenses never to win a title" discussion.

Without the championship in 2004, all of those insane defensive streaks we went on, the under-70 and under-80 massacres would have been nothing more than footnotes, and you wouldn't ever hear me mention how great they were in the context of them possibly being the best ever.

McKeyFan
02-25-2013, 06:36 AM
You guys have been played. We just beat Detroit in back to back blowouts and Kstat has you talking about the Piston glory years.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 06:56 AM
You guys have been played. We just beat Detroit in back to back blowouts and Kstat has you talking about the Piston glory years.

In all fairness, they brought it up, not me....

Hey, my team sucks and the game itself was pretty much an uncontested grinder. The most emotion either team showed all night was after the one basket from a guy that shot 1/10. I'm not sure what else there is to talk about.

King Tuts Tomb
02-25-2013, 07:10 AM
I'd qualify that list by saying any calculation that does not include the 2000 baltimore ravens in the top 20 defenses of the superbowl era is deeply flawed and should be dismissed as such. That team went an entire month without scoring a touchdown of any kind and still won twice.

The 2000 Ravens are on all three of those lists, on the first one the defensive ratings are on the middle of the page.

Speaking of that team, they went a month without scoring a touchdown, let's say that had happened in the playoffs and Trent Dilfer throws a couple pick sixes. Maybe the defense holds up and gives up zero points but the offense throws the game away. Nothing about the defense changes at all, just the circumstances around them.


In any case, this is my point. In discussions of the best NFL defenses ever, several names come up: the Steel Curtain Steelers, the 85 Bears, and the 00 Ravens. Now and then, you'll see someone throw the 77 Cowboys or the 84 49ers in the mix. Point is, any team that didn't win a superbowl is forever dismissed, regardless of statistical accomplishments. Stats are the window dressing, but they're ultimately empty without the championship to give them meaning.


They come up in discussions because they're famous because they won the Super Bowl. If people actually took the time to watch the game tape and look at the numbers and circumstances then they might not be so quick to only consider the Super Bowl winner as a great defensive team.

If Fisher doesn't hit that miraculous shot against the Spurs, then the Pistons play the Spurs in the finals and who knows if they win a title. That Pistons team hasn't changed, but the circumstances have.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 07:13 AM
Maybe a meteor hits the earth tomorrow and as the last human being left in earth, I'm also the greatest basketball player of my generation by default.

You're also throwing out countless scenarios that never happened, which is a non-starter.

If this happened, or if that happened, or if some call didn't go against us, and who knows if this would have happened...

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The bottom line is, winning is the name of the game. You win or you don't. The players themselves don't consider non Super Bowl winning defenses to be among the best ever. These are the same players that played on those teams. You're trying to re-invent the wheel here.

The spurs lost their claim to the title of best team in 2004 when they fell apart in game six long after fisher's miracle shot that was partially the result of bad defense on San Antonio's part. Nobody cares about the what ifs. They had a fair chance and lost. We don't go giving theoretical trophies to losers. That's like one step up from the participation ribbon in field day.

You're more than free to try and start some new universally accepted standard that you don't have to win the nba finals to be the best team in the nba, but I doubt you're going to get any traction.

Naptown_Seth
02-25-2013, 07:20 AM
There was only one problem with "Championship" dude. This was NOT his first taunt.


His first and so terribly pathetic attempt was to go with "Peyton Manning Sucks!" Later he clung pretty firmly to "Tayshaun Prince" in reference to the block. So we started in on a "Where is Tayshaun" chant for the whole arena.


Fan Rule #11 - don't go solo against a group of 30+ organized in the taunt game

Kstat
02-25-2013, 07:24 AM
There was only one problem with "Championship" dude. This was NOT his first taunt.


His first and so terribly pathetic attempt was to go with "Peyton Manning Sucks!" Later he clung pretty firmly to "Tayshaun Prince" in reference to the block. So we started in on a "Where is Tayshaun" chant for the whole arena.


Fan Rule #11 - don't go solo against a group of 30+ organized in the taunt game

Fan rule #1: the scoreboard trumps everything. 1 blowout score wins the taunting war no matter how many people are on what side.

BTW, I think you may be in the wrong thread....

Naptown_Seth
02-25-2013, 07:28 AM
With that logic, the team that wins the championship every year is the best defensive team. Since, you know, you can't compare them to the other non-champions in the league. Which is fine, but then all you're really saying is that they're the best defensive team in the league that also won the championship.

The champion is just that; the winner of the postseason tournament.
Exactly. Sorry KStat but your logic means that the best team in terms of Offense, Defense, 3pt shooting, FTAs, steals, best dunking, etc must all be the same team for a given season - the title team.

The title Pistons were by your standard the Best Offensive Team of 2004 because when any other team needed offense to win a game, it failed. And they dunked the best because when other teams needed a dunk to win, they failed.



The Pistons were a great defensive team and did enough of other areas, combined with matching up the best against the teams they played, to win a championship. But they weren't the best offensive team even if you claim they were by your logic.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 07:31 AM
Look, this seems to be going around and circles, so I'm going to make this simple.

If the 2013 pacers are a historically great defense worthy of being in the discussion for the best ever, they'll win the nba championship. If not, they won't.

Now, you can set up qualifiers from here to the moon in the event if/when they lose so you can still make that claim, but you're going to be screaming at the wall. Nobody outside of Indiana is going to accept them on that pedestal unless they bring some hardware with them.

Personally, I think this should be a fun postseason. I think Indiana could actually pull it off, but we'll see. Given how defensive some of you are already, I actually think I may have more confidence in them than the rest of you..

Naptown_Seth
02-25-2013, 07:38 AM
Fan rule #1: the scoreboard trumps everything. 1 blowout score wins the taunting war no matter how many people are on what side.

BTW, I think you may be in the wrong thread....
No, back on page 2 or whatever Sandman said this guy was taunting about titles and you guys started discussing the merits of using that to rebuff visiting fans. I was adding details, although I did just wrap up the extensive recap thread.

You don't lead with the QB from 2 years ago who did win a SB when you have a championship in your holster. Especially if your own football team doesn't have a SB and also had an ugly loss to that QB on Thanksgiving in recent years. Honestly I don't know why he didn't go the Tigers route, they just won the AL. We don't even have a team. Plus the Red Wings. Basically anything non-NFL is good territory to taunt from from the Detroit side.




And back on the Best Defense thing, the better point isn't "must win title" but rather "must do it for full season" or "must rank higher in stat X". The Pacers can't have one of the top defensive teams at the 50 game mark. They can have the potential to maybe be that. And as always with this discussion it's best to establish the measuring points for "best defense" before getting into the debate.

They do have things the Pistons did - length and a system that has guys always contenting shots. But they haven't been making TOs at a high rate, and it's actually been near the worst TO created rate in the NBA. I think FG% and rebounding count more than TOs, but the balance of each factor is tough to say for certain for this debate.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 07:40 AM
The championship has to come first. From that point on, we can go into detail about who had better numbers, and which defense was better for longer periods. That's when the stats come into play, and I'm totally cool with that.

For instance, if the pacers get mocked out by Miami in round two, the comparison becomes moot. I can't compare how the pacers fared on the biggest stage in basketball, the nba finals, because the pacers never made it there.

Likewise, I would never compare any of the 1998-2000 pacers to the bad boys. I'd be up for a comparison between the early 70's pacers, but there's just a very clear, distinct line between champs and non-champs.

King Tuts Tomb
02-25-2013, 07:44 AM
Maybe a meteor hits the earth tomorrow and as the last human being left in earth, I'm also the greatest basketball player of my generation by default.

You're also throwing out countless scenarios that never happened, which is a non-starter.

The point being that only looking at the final result is a poor method of analysis. As much as people want to believe that their favorite championship team was a collection of heroes brought together by destiny to win a championship, often they win because of good match ups and blind luck, along with being great.

Maybe I went a little overboard with the hypothetical, but the point remains the same: Just judging a defense based only on a championship discounts everything else surrounding that defense, for no reason other than an arbitrary decision you've made.


The players themselves don't consider non Super Bowl winning defenses to be among the best ever. These are the same players that played on those teams.

Players are often poor at judging their own performance and effectiveness, and are just as susceptible as anyone else to narrative traps. I wouldn't take their word as gospel, but just one piece of the larger puzzle.


The spurs lost their claim to the title of best team in 2004 when they fell apart in game six long after fisher's miracle shot that was partially the result of bad defense on San Antonio's part. Nobody cares about the what ifs. They had a fair chance and lost. We don't go giving theoretical trophies to losers.

You're more than free to try and start some new universally accepted standard that you don't have to win the nba finals to be the best team in the nba, but I doubt you're going to get any traction.

I never said this. I just consider a broader set of circumstances than "Scoreboard" when considering sports.

Naptown_Seth
02-25-2013, 07:47 AM
Look, this seems to be going around and circles, so I'm going to make this simple.

If the 2013 pacers are a historically great defense worthy of being in the discussion for the best ever, they'll win the nba championship. If not, they won't.

Now, you can set up qualifiers from here to the moon in the event if/when they lose so you can still make that claim, but you're going to be screaming at the wall. Nobody outside of Indiana is going to accept them on that pedestal unless they bring some hardware with them.

Personally, I think this should be a fun postseason. I think Indiana could actually pull it off, but we'll see. Given how defensive some of you are already, I actually think I may have more confidence in them than the rest of you..

But see the Pistons/Pacers disprove your point on their own. The Pacers were ALSO one of the greatest defensive teams ever, just not as great as the Pistons, or they were more offensively inept. The Pistons winning the series didn't answer which was the better defense, it answered which was the better team. And I'm telling you outright that national people DO NOT follow your standard because Run-TMC is considered one of the great offenses in NBA history, sans title. It's clear for them that while they were elite in one way, they were not a good enough team in total.

This Pacers team could be known for being the greatest defensive team ever, but so awful on offense that it was wasted. So the Pistons go down as the greater team.



I get what you are trying to allude to but it's the idea that you only have one great thing at a time. It's the idea that if you were so great then where were you impacting games. But if the Pacers get swept by Miami in games that go 50-40 where Miami shoots 20%, then the Pacers defense is going to be considered elite if it seems like they are making the plays to cause that FG%. It could mean that Miami is the better defensive team....unless people see the Pacers missing tons of open looks, or layups, or whatever.

It will be opinion and that opinion will have a lot to do with the HOW as much as whether they win or lose. You are picturing one version of HOW where the defense can't get that late stop, but what if they do and Paul and West miss 4 straight title winning open shots at the FT line on 4 successive trips. People would talk about all the stops their elite defense kept getting and how they kept blowing open shots. That would 100% be the narrative. Not "I guess they weren't good on defense".

Kstat
02-25-2013, 07:47 AM
I just consider a broader set of circumstances than "Scoreboard" when considering sports.

Without a doubt. But the scoreboard is ultimately the most important thing. Everything else is secondary.

When the scoreboard is even (comparing champion to champion), then we can go into the finer, lesser important details to determine a tiebreaker.

Kstat
02-25-2013, 07:53 AM
It will be opinion and that opinion will have a lot to do with the HOW as much as whether they win or lose. You are picturing one version of HOW where the defense can't get that late stop, but what if they do and Paul and West miss 4 straight title winning open shots at the FT line on 4 successive trips. People would talk about all the stops their elite defense kept getting and how they kept blowing open shots. That would 100% be the narrative. Not "I guess they weren't good on defense".

If the Pacers in such an absurd scenario play a 50-49 game against the Miami Heat that determines the fate of their season, they need to win said game 50-49. Unless you're going to argue that every point allowed in the entire game was totally unpreventable, in which case you're stretched that scenario beyond the limits of realistic possibility, and here comes the meteor.

The 2004 Pistons had more than a few games where they were totally inept offensively and pulled superhuman weight on defense to win games they had to win. They were probably the worst offensive team in the modern era to win a championship. Their best player averaged under 10 points a game.

BTW, nobody considers run TMC one of the greatest offenses ever. They're considered one of the best offensive trios ever, and one of the most fun teams ever, but no, that honor never has and never will go to Run TMC. There were so many holes in the 90 and 91 Warriors offensively you could drive a truck through them. No sane individual would call that a complete offense on the same level as teams that won championships primarily on that end.

the early 1960's celtics and the mid/late 80's showtime lakers are generally thought of as the most complete offensive teams ever. Those teams had virtually no offensive weaknesses. They could kill you in the halfcourt or in transition. In the post or on the perimeter. You can sprinkle the 1967 Sixers or the 1972 Lakers in there if you'd like, but they would all outclass a 1991 Warriors offense that basically revolved around three perimeter players passing the ball to each other and zero inside game.

Heck, I wouldn't even consider run TMC the best offense never to win a championship. The 1995 Magic, the 2000 Pacers, the 2002 Kings and the 1993/2007 Suns were way more deadly.

Will Galen
02-25-2013, 08:22 AM
Just wondered, because most Hoosiers (in the generic sense) get drawing a line between IU and Purdue. I get where you're coming from, though.

I was born and raised in Indiana, and I guess that bad virus missed me that says you can't root for both. I was always an IU fan first and would root for IU over Purdue, but otherwise I always rooted for Purdue. I also rooted for Evansville, Butler, and Indiana State when they were fighting for crowns too.

Will Galen
02-25-2013, 08:35 AM
Without a doubt. But the scoreboard is ultimately the most important thing. Everything else is secondary.

When the scoreboard is even (comparing champion to champion), then we can go into the finer, lesser important details to determine a tiebreaker.

Even then sports can be arbitrary, in any given game the best team doesn't always win.

As for fans, whenever they discuss teams they will use whatever metrics that favor their argument in a discussion.

aamcguy
02-25-2013, 12:10 PM
Without a doubt. But the scoreboard is ultimately the most important thing. Everything else is secondary.

When the scoreboard is even (comparing champion to champion), then we can go into the finer, lesser important details to determine a tiebreaker.

This assertion only works if people consistently follow the rule. But they don't. And as somebody who actually prefers the journey of the regular season more than the flash and sizzle of the postseason I am definitely one that doesn't look to championships first. For every journalist that demands championship rings before historical discussion, there's another one who says the accomplishments of the other teams can't be overlooked. The same goes for fans.

Myself, I view the championship as a singular accomplishment. If you win, you are recognized for your team victory. And I can't help but keep thinking, as Wil said, that of all teams the Pistons are known for winning their championships with defense. If you take out over 95% of the teams to have ever played the game, of course you have a much better chance of being crowned the best.

And I want no part of any metric that arbitrarily takes out almost the entirety of its statistical population size.

gummy
02-25-2013, 04:29 PM
I was born and raised in Indiana, and I guess that bad virus missed me that says you can't root for both. I was always an IU fan first and would root for IU over Purdue, but otherwise I always rooted for Purdue. I also rooted for Evansville, Butler, and Indiana State when they were fighting for crowns too.

Me too. Purdue first, and Purdue over IU. But otherwise, I'd back IU against "foreign" opponents. I don't even really like football but I loved to rib my parents-in-law (Patriots fans) about Peyton being better than Brady.

For me, it's about Indiana Basketball. The Pacers, the Fever, Purdue, IU, Notre Dame, Indiana State, Butler, IUPUI, Broad Ripple HS, Perry Merridian HS, Elmhurst HS up in Fort Wayne (RIP, alma mater)...if it's Indiana, I'm about it, even after 12 years of So Cal sunshine. :)

Since86
02-25-2013, 04:32 PM
So depressing. Ball State keeps getting left off the "I root for Indiana schools altogether" lists. :cry:

gummy
02-25-2013, 04:33 PM
So depressing. Ball State keeps getting left off the "I root for Indiana schools altogether" lists. :cry:

Awwww. I am always forgetting about Ball State. But hey, if I'm flipping through channels and find a Ball State game, I'll be rooting for them!

I probably won't be getting a shirt that says "Ball State," on it anytime in the near future though. :laugh:

Since86
02-25-2013, 04:39 PM
If you ever find them on TV, you'll soon change your mind. I can't even watch them. :puke: I know there are a few of us Cardinals on here though.

TinManJoshua
02-25-2013, 04:43 PM
If you ever find them on TV, you'll soon change your mind. I can't even watch them. :puke: I know there are a few of us Cardinals on here though.

The MACsketball thread in the Locker Room died fast. You guys are bad, we were mediocre, and Akron and Ohio are running away from everybody. Not exactly an exciting MAC season.

Sandman21
02-25-2013, 08:23 PM
So depressing. Ball State keeps getting left off the "I root for Indiana schools altogether" lists. :cry:

Hah, at least Ball State eventually gets mentioned. Nobody ever talks about Vincennes University, even if our sole claim to fame is that David Beckham was once photographed wearing a VU shirt. Nobody ever knew why either.

D-BONE
02-25-2013, 10:47 PM
Nice activity from Manhimi - not necessarily good offense - but boards, D, energy in good minutes.

DJ doesn't look like the same player as early in the year shooting the ball - great stroke.

Only negative about DG back is less OJ minutes. Good problem to have.