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

4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 21
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21 template Next
  • #1

    4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

    CRUSH THE CAVS



    -VS-


    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: R. Garretson, D. Collins, J. Williams

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Cleveland Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports Ohio
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WTAM 1100 FM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    48-29
    Home: 29-10
    East: 30-17
    24-52
    Away: 10-28
    East: 17-28
    Apr 12
    Apr 14
    Apr 16
    Apr 17
    7:00pm
    3:30pm
    8:00pm
    8:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    ZELLER
    THOMPSON
    GEE
    ELLINGTON
    IRVING


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - sore knee (dunzo)



    CAVALIERS
    Daniel Gibson - sore right elbow (doubtful)
    C.J. Miles - forehead laceration/concussion (out)
    Anderson Varejao - vastus medialis split/surgery (out)
    Dion Waiters - left knee (out)
    Luke Walton - right ankle sprain (out)




    Noam Schiller: Danny Granger's Lost Season Breeds an Uncertain Future

    In the summer of 2008, three young small forwards signed hefty long-term contracts
    with their incumbent teams.

    Restricted free agent Luol Deng got 6 years and $72 million from the Bulls, overcoming
    both contentious negotiations and an injury plagued 2007-08 campaign in which the
    team inexplicably slipped from an up-and-coming juggernaut to a 33-49 mess.

    Fellow 2004 draft mate and RFA Andre Iguodala got 6 years and $80 million from the
    Philadelphia 76ers, who had just completed the free agent snatching of Elton Brand
    and were hoping to unleash a monster two-man tandem on an unsuspecting conference.

    Meanwhile, Danny Granger, drafted a year later than those two, got a 5 year, $60
    million extension from the Indiana Pacers right before the October 31st deadline,
    spared the need to muck through the waters of restricted free agency and cemented
    as the team’s post-Jermaine O’Neal cornerstone.

    Over the following seasons, these three players (and some might add Josh Smith,
    another 2008 RFA) became something of a symbol of the perils of paying the supporting
    actor like the lead. Deng played just 49 games in 2008-09, as the Bulls turned their
    attention to Derrick Rose; Brand broke down instantly, leaving Iguodala to shoulder too
    heavy a load and take too large a portion of the blame; and Granger’s Pacers wallowed
    in mediocrity, firmly entrenched as the best Eastern team outside the playoff picture,
    even as Granger made his only all-star team in 2008-09.

    A few years later, the narrative has flipped for two of the three. Deng, health re-
    discovered, had the burden of a cornerstone lifted, fitting in perfectly as an
    indestructible workhorse that does everything Tom Thibodeau asks him to. Iguodala
    lead the Sixers to the second round of the playoffs for the first time since that other AI,
    and was then shipped out to Denver, where an ensemble cast magnifies his strengths
    and covers for his weaknesses. If you were to press enough, you would still hear
    admissions that they are overpaid, but it no longer defined them.

    Granger, done for the season all of 5 games in, is a trickier story. Even last season,
    when he was still leading his team in scoring, he was easy to criticize for his declining
    percentages and all-around contributions. He did not have the luxury Deng had, of a
    well-defined role in the shadow of a superstar, and he is not nearly the defender
    Iguodala is, which often helps us excuse players on account of showing effort. Both
    Deng and Iguodala made the all-star team last year, for the first time in their careers;
    Granger was left on the outside looking in despite posting the best offensive numbers
    of the three and his team performing well, as Roy Hibbert took the token Pacer spot.

    Now, as the Pacers battle...CONTINUE READING AT HARDWOOD PAROXYSM

    Jared Wade: Can an NBA Team Win a Title Living and Dying by the 3?

    The three-point shot was so irrelevant during its first year in the NBA that the Los
    Angeles Lakers made just three shots from behind the arc on their way to a title in 1980.
    Rookie Magic Johnson was their sharpshooter, making two of his eight long-range
    attempts during his team's 16-game playoff run. Norm Nixon hit the other one, but he
    missed his five other long-range tries.

    Yes, they won the title while playing 16 playoff games and making just three three-
    pointers. That is fewer than one every five games. On the 82-game season, that Lakers
    team made just 20-of-100 attempts from deep.

    Los Angeles wasn't alone in not embracing the gimmick.

    Few teams shot many threes in that first year, and only four attempted more than 3.6
    per game. For reference, in 2013, that is the same number J.J. Barea takes every
    night.

    That first season, the San Diego Clippers were the one team of true gunners. They
    launched 6.6 attempts per game—which puts them in line with Klay Thompson's 2013
    individual numbers (although Thompson, at 39.3 percent, is much more accurate than
    those 32 percent-shooting Clippers were).

    While the three-pointer continued to be seldom used by most good teams throughout
    the 1980s, the following decade began to feature players who had grown up with the
    shot, and more and more coaches implemented it into their strategy.


    Still, it was nothing like it is today.

    In the 2012 playoffs, for example, Kevin Durant took 110 threes. That's more than the
    1979-80 Lakers took collectively over an 82-game season.

    Durant's 5.5 attempts per game may be higher than some coaches would like mere
    mortals to be taking, but in the modern NBA, hitting a lot of threes seems to be a
    prerequisite for team success.

    Plenty of teams still get by without making it a primary focus, but nearly every team
    that has made a conference final in the past decade relies on more makes behind the
    arc than even the longest bombers of the early 1990s ever contemplated.

    For sure, the idea of "live by the three, die by the three" is outdated. Now, you're
    more apt to die if don't shoot it.

    For example, the Dallas Mavericks, who ranked fifth in the league in three-point
    attempts per game, were able to win a title in 2011. Their 21.6 attempts per night is
    the most ever by a champion, eeking out the 1995 Houston Rockets, a team that
    surrounded Hakeem Olajuwon with shooters and fired away from a short three-point
    line.

    It is interesting that people generally point to the 2004 season and the "Seven Seconds
    or Less" Phoenix Suns as the catalyst for the era of increased three-point shooting.
    They certainly did provide an uptempo spread model to follow.

    What really introduced the three ball to the NBA in a major way was the league's
    decision to move in the line right as the Rockets were winning back-to-back titles on
    the strength of the three ball (Houston led the league in attempts in both of its
    championship seasons).

    For three seasons in the mid-1990s (1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97), the three-point
    line was shortened to a uniform 22 feet around the arc. That's the same distance as the
    current corner three.

    Three-point shooting went through the roof.

    The year before, the league average was 9.9 three-point attempts per night. In the first
    year of the short line, it jumped to 15.3. In all, 14 players attempted at least 400 threes.
    Before 1994-95, Basketball-Reference lists only four players (Michael Adams, Dan
    Majerle, Vernon Maxwell and Reggie Miller) who had ever tried that many in a season.

    It didn't make for the...CONTINUE READING AT BLEACHER REPORT

    Kevin Hetrick: Kevin’s Pre-season Predictions, a Redux

    This week, Cleveland reaches the 90% point of the season, and the team quit already,
    so now serves as good a time as any to review my bold, and likely folly, pre-season
    predictions    . Let’s dive in:

    33 wins
    Ouch. If Andy and Kyrie played 75 games, this would have happened. The good health
    was wishful thinking. Please stay on-the-court next year.

    Beat an elite team on the road by double digits
    Not quite. Cleveland’s victory in Los Angeles against the Clippers failed to qualify; the
    Cavs won by seven.

    Lose at home to a horrible team by twenty
    Also, slightly off, but a loss by 13 to Phoenix nearly hits the mark. General idea being
    that the season would be up-and-down. I wish it was ending as “up” though.

    CJ Miles finishes second on the team in scoring at nearly 14 points
    Tom consistently noted his friend projecting CJ as a solid contributor on the Wine &
    Gold, but I was riding that train, too. Miles currently resides sixth on the team in
    scoring with 11.3 points per game.

    His PER is also 13-ish
    Miles is pairing true shooting that exceeds his previous four seasons with career best
    defensive rebounding; his PER hits 15. At the beginning of the season, I envisioned
    Miles receiving more minutes, while scoring frequently, yet inefficiently.

    Each of Cleveland’s wings post PER between 13 and 14
    Only Dion Waiters came through here. Miles exceeded, while Casspi and Gee under-
    performed.

    Boobie’s PER would be 11.2, but with 40% from deep
    Gibson is hitting career lows from the field, from deep, and at the free throw line.
    Sigh…

    He gets traded
    Wrong here. Jon Leuer got sent packing instead. Best of luck in free agency, Daniel.
    Kyrie receives four points in MVP voting – If Irving played 70 games, no doubt this
    would have happened.

    Due to 20 points, 7 assists and 57% true shooting
    Kyrie’s TS% is 57%, but his scoring is higher, with lesser distribution. All things
    considered, I would have preferred my prediction.

    Harangody hits 17 threes
    I picked the wrong Luke...CONTINUE READING AT CAVS THE BLOG




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Cavaliers
    M.S. Boyer/J. Valade @PDcavsinsider
    Bob Finnan @BobCavsinsider
    John Krolik @JohnKrolik
    Conrad Kaczmarek @conradkaczmarek
    This is the darkest timeline.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

    Obviously a must win.
    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

      Playing well in this game would be nice, but our bench (or lack there of) has me thinking we are more pretender than contender at this junction.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

        Can we please, PLEASE stop completely writing off the Pacers until we actually see the team fully involved in the playoffs?

        Roy is playing out of his mind right now, David is still recovering from his back soreness and the games he missed, Paul hasn't been himself for the last two games especially.

        If we can get Paul and David back on track with the way Roy is playing, we can still be a serious threat to ANY team in the playoffs.

        Remember, not too high, not too low...

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

          Wow their bench is decimated with injuries.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

            Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
            Wow their bench is decimated with injuries.
            Wow they're tanking.
            Last edited by boombaby1987; 04-09-2013, 03:48 PM.
            There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

              Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
              Wow their tanking.
              I'm surprised Irving is playing.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
                Can we please, PLEASE stop completely writing off the Pacers until we actually see the team fully involved in the playoffs?

                Roy is playing out of his mind right now, David is still recovering from his back soreness and the games he missed, Paul hasn't been himself for the last two games especially.

                If we can get Paul and David back on track with the way Roy is playing, we can still be a serious threat to ANY team in the playoffs.

                Remember, not too high, not too low...
                I am jealous of you. Seriously, I am. I wish I could have this perspective with this team, but I can't. We are fatally flawed IMO with this bench. Don't get me wrong, we have great starters (which yes, is more important than a bench), and we are one of the top 6 or 7 teams in the league.

                This perspective isn't something I have dreamed up overnight, this glaring weakness has presented itself over the course of the year. Hill's bad play and PG's bad play I can forgive. This is just an abberation. The bench is a trainwreck though.

                This team reminds me of the Hawks of a few years ago. Real good starting five, very good regular season record, but fatally flawed.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                  I'm preparing myself for another night of "Can we finally admit George Hill is a horrible defender?" Despite the reality of the situation.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                    I'm preparing myself for people declaring a win as utterly meaningless since at this point in the season every team we are playing is tanking, or holding a loss up as further proof the team is a disaster and should have tanked for a lottery pick.
                    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

                    • #11
                      Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                      A win against Cleveland is pretty much utterly meaningless as to a gauge of how good we are, it is important in seeding.

                      And losing at home to a tanking Cleveland team would be an utter disaster.


                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        A win against Cleveland is pretty much utterly meaningless as to a gauge of how good we are, it is important in seeding.

                        And losing at home to a tanking Cleveland team would be an utter disaster.
                        Better cancel the game and refund all that ticket money. Why play it? There's no possibility of anyone attending or watching the game being allowed to be happy, and having to be miserable after a win is no fun at all.
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                          Who said to be miserable after the win? The win will help our seeding. So that is good, but beating the Cavaliers isn't anything to throw a parade over. The seeding is important.


                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                            Everyone knows you can't trust anyone writing on Bleacher Report.
                            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: 4/9/2013 Game Thread #78: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                              Roy is just in a zone.
                              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21 template Next
                              Working...
                              X