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:
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

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

O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

    Pacers notebook
    O'Neal wants consistent rotation

    By Mark Montieth

    TORONTO -- Rick Carlisle has tinkered with his starting lineup and his playing rotation in an attempt to find a winning combination for the Indiana Pacers.

    He mentioned the possibility of more changes following Sunday's 92-83 loss to Toronto. Forward/center Jermaine O'Neal, however, would like to see a more consistent approach.

    "We're going to have to pick a rotation," O'Neal said. "We have to find it soon. There's no way you can get a rhythm as a team with guys in and out of there. You have to pick somebody and you have to roll with them. If that doesn't work, then you change it."

    O'Neal, who finished with 15 points, 11 rebounds and three blocked shots, also was frustrated by the offense late in the game.

    The Pacers were still clinging to hope after cutting a 19-point fourth-quarter deficit to eight on Stephen Jackson's 3-pointer with 3:11 left. They had two shots to get closer, but Jackson and Danny Granger each missed 3-pointers.
    Toronto's Chris Bosh followed with a layup, securing the outcome.

    O'Neal complained to the coaches as he walked to the bench for the timeout that followed Bosh's basket. He got the ball on the first play after the break and drew a foul after rebounding two of his own misses. He hit both foul shots.

    "I always want the ball in situations where we need baskets," O'Neal said. "They were playing one-on-one coverage. I fully trust my teammates, but at that particular time, they weren't making shots and if they're not making shots, I want the ball to make things happen."

    The gods are angry

    Indiana's Al Harrington continued to struggle with his shooting Sunday, hitting 4-of-15 shots.

    He hit 5-of-9 shots in Friday's win over Cleveland, but was 5-of-24 in the two previous games.

    Although he's no fan of the NBA's new ball, he doesn't hold it responsible.

    "The good thing about it is, I'm not off too much," said Harrington, who had a game-high 14 rebounds. "They're right on line; they just won't go in.

    "I believe in basketball gods. I must have done something wrong. I'm trying to make it right with them. Hopefully they'll start going in soon."

    Carlisle's also confident.

    "Looking long term, I'm not worried about Al struggling offensively," he said. "I'm more worried about the energy and decision-making of our team."

    Baston still waiting

    Maceo Baston, who was activated for Sunday's game but did not play, has made just four appearances this season.

    That's not what he had in mind last summer when he signed a free agent contract with the Pacers, but he doesn't regret leaving the powerful Maccabi team in Israel.

    "It's still early in the season," he said. "Maybe this will be a learning experience and next year will be better."

    Carlisle and Pacers president Larry Bird both express confidence in Baston's ability.

    "I'm not disappointed in him at all," Bird said. "I think he belongs in this league. He adds something we need out there and his time will come."

    Why Not Us ?

  • #2
    Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

    "We're going to have to pick a rotation," O'Neal said. "We have to find it soon. There's no way you can get a rhythm as a team with guys in and out of there. You have to pick somebody and you have to roll with them. If that doesn't work, then you change it."

    Uhhhhhhh.... contradiction?

    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


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

    -John Wooden


    • #3
      Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

      That's what I've been saying all along. Why Montieth chooses to quote JO instead of me is mind-boggling. Really though the biggest problem the Pacers have had the last few seasons is no consistent starting lineup due to injury or suspensions. For the first time in a long time everybody's healthy and available, yet Carlisle keeps shuffling the lineup. I'll say it again, there is no award for "Most Lineups Used". Start the projected starting lineup...Tinsley, Jackson,Granger, Al & JO bring Daniels, Runi & Foster off the bench and the rest of the guys will get spot minutes here and there. By spot minutes I mean Armstrong still gets 10-15 and the rest of the guys get in when needed.

      Baston isn't the savior. He's right where he belongs, in line with the other insurance policy players. He's not gonna take minutes away from Al, JO or Foster.
      I'm in these bands
      The Humans
      Dr. Goldfoot
      The Bar Brawlers


      • #4
        Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

        You have to pick somebody and you have to roll with them. If that doesn't work, then you change it."
        Um, JO, weren't you present at all those crap starts? I think we all know WHY Rick was tinkering with the rotation after having it pretty well set earlier in the year. THIS IS the "well that doesn't seem to be quite working, let's adjust" period. It's not game 5 anymore.

        I mean I don't consider it "bail out, trade away" time at all, but swapping out a SINGLE player from the starting lineup isn't exactly a total overhaul. Jack has been shooting terribly and seemed agreeable to going to the bench; he certainly seemed to understand that his shooting was a problem.

        It's not like Tins, Granger, JO and Al have been in and out of the starting lineup, or even like the minutes have varied that much for players. Jack has continued to get into the 30+ range coming off the bench.

        If you ignore the SG position and guys out for injury, how many different lineups have they used? Have the bench guys varied that much? I have been seeing DA, Foster, Daniels, Sarunas, and Rawle as the main bench players, with dashes of Powell, Harrison, and Baston.

        Daniels saw a DNP (unknown) and some starts when Jack struggled, but that's been AFTER the team struggled to find good starts. Rick has then tried Rawle starting for a few games.

        This is NOT crazy lineup variation, especially in light of the lackluster start to the season in which on-court chemistry in the starting lineup has been suspect to say the least.

        "I always want the ball in situations where we need baskets," O'Neal said. "They were playing one-on-one coverage. I fully trust my teammates, but at that particular time, they weren't making shots and if they're not making shots, I want the ball to make things happen."
        Look, I've been promoting JO's season as much as anyone, the dude is tearing it up. However, since when did JO get the rep for late clutch scoring? To me he's not talking sense, he's talking frustration. He certainly didn't mind when Jack hit the 3 a few plays before the Danny and Jack misses, so it sounds a lot more like "well, if they make them then they should take them, but otherwise give the ball to me"...good plan if you have a crystal ball. Maybe try not being down double digits to TOR in the 4th, that makes these worries moot.


        • #5
          Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

          Harrington thinks hes not off too much? Lol.
          My Dream Team

          PG - A.Iverson
          SG - K.Bryant
          SF - R.Artest
          PF - J.O'Neal
          C - D.Howard


          • #6
            Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

            JO is starting to **** me off. STFU and play already.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird


            • #7
              Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

              I respectfully disagree Seth.

              The game against the Wizards. JO sits out. Instead of sliding Foster into the starting spot he starts Harrison? David had played 22 minutes in the previous 4 games with 10 of those coming in opening night. Rick has this crazy notion that the second unit must remain intact. He did similar roster moves last year when Tinsley went down and in the 60 win season when Tinsley went down. I don't understand when the third string guy is a better option to start the game than the backup guy. BTW, the following game Harrison played 1:46. On top of that he's played 8 minutes in the 9 games following his start with injury being the main culprit I suppose.

              Daniels starts in place of Jackson for three games. Then doesn't even get in the next game and played 10 minutes vs the Raptors.

              Rawle gets the nod in the two games after Daniels. He plays 16 minutes combined. In his first start, Marshall surpasses 10 minutes of game time for the fourth time this year. He plays the first 7 minutes vs the Cavs then the final 30 seconds of the half then 2 minutes in the third. He plays the first 6 minutes vs the Raptors never to be seen again.

              Foster gets the start for Al vs the Bucks. He has the best game of any of the experimental starters with 9 boards a block and 11 points. The other three "starters" combine for 11 boards 7 assists and 15 points in their 6 starts.

              Carlisle is unorthodox is his substitution patterns. Especially when it comes to replacing a starter due to injury or otherwise. Why a guy would go from playing very little to starting and vice versa is puzzling to me.
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers


              • #8
                Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                JO is starting to **** me off. STFU and play already.
                There's room in the JO, STFU and Play Club.

                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


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

                -John Wooden


                • #9
                  Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  There's room in the JO, STFU and Play Club.

                  I'm in that club too but not 2 worry, when have they ever listened to JO? Have they brought in any of the players he recommended? No.

                  TPTB are called that because they do not give their power away. They keep all of the control to themselves and in a couple of instances I can think of I'm not sure THAT was even a good idea. But none the less, they do not allow the players to dictate to them and for that I am grateful.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.


                  • #10
                    Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                    Disagree? What about stats.

                    Of the games where players were available to start...
                    JO 13 of 13
                    Al 13 of 13
                    Granger 14 of 14
                    Tinsely 14 of 14

                    Jack 9 of 14

                    Of Jack's 5 non-starts (the last 5 games in a row, not sporadic) his minutes are: 32, 33, 37, 25, 36

                    Rawle's has played in 13 games with 2 starts. He averages 9.2 MPG, and in his 2 starts he got 10 and 6 minutes. He's only been over 15 minutes 4 times this season, typically because he has had it going that night.

                    The main bench as I listed it - DA, Foster, Saras, Daniels and Rawle - all have played 13 or 14 games so far.

                    Saras gets 16 MPG - he has been 5 more than 5 minutes above or below that 4 times (2 below and the last 2 games he was well above)

                    DA gets 13 MPG - he's had 2 games outside the 5 minute window, 2 of 7 minutes and one at 19 (early in the season BTW).

                    Foster gets 21 MPG - he's had 4 games outside his window, 2 lower early in the season, 2 a little higher a few weeks ago. 9 of his games have been from 18-24 minutes played.

                    Daniels gets 21 MPG - 6 of his have been within 3 minutes of that, and only 3 times has he played 5 minutes outside his average. 1 game early in the year was 15 minutes, another a few weeks ago was 33 vs NJ (when he had 5 steals, 5-10 FG, and 7 rebounds). His other low game was vs TOR yesterday which came after a mysterious DNP, which indicates "internal issue" like an argument or missed practice or both perhaps.

                    Harrison and Foster got their starts on games where Al and JO sat with injury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Al and JO are BIGS, and Jeff and Harrison are also BIGS, what's unorthodox about that starter replacement? You call this "experimental". Can you explain why Foster starting when Al is out is experimental please.

                    Daniels and Rawle both have had their chances to start over Jack because Jack struggled to shoot well in the teams first nine games. Something appears to have happened with Daniels before the CLE game which is where Rawle stepped in (it could have been an argument about starting Rawle, but my guess considering Rawle's minutes is that there was a problem with MD).

                    Starting your backup SG for your starting SG is the farthest thing from unorthodox. So I'm still wondering what "crazy" starting sub it is you are talking about.

                    Harrison, Powell, Greene and Baston all sit OUTSIDE the 10 man rotation and only pick up bits and pieces. Only Harrison has played in half the games this year and only Powell has seen more than 10 mpg (in 3 appearances). Harrison's 7 GPs came in the team's first 8 which includes his start. David played his way out of the rotation or is injured, but the trajectory is pretty clear.

                    This team is 7-7 and has had many rough starts to games. The amount of changes they have done compared to the norm in these circumstances is actually probably a little low. Only the Daniels thing came as a surprise and it has all the markings of an issue rather than a strategic choice.

                    Rick has this crazy notion that the second unit must remain intact.
                    = inconsistant in your head? And it happened ONCE, Jeff started when Al sat.

                    You've got a little paradox going there, and besides Harrison got the start EARLY in the year, and in that game Foster came in for him about 3-4 minutes into the 1st and 3rd (both times with David in the negative on the +/-, ie the team wasn't winning either quarter).


                    • #11
                      Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                      Well, I see what O'Neal is saying.

                      You have to stick the most talented players in the game at all times, period, unless they are unefficient at a certain position. I think we need to put our most talented guys of each position in the game and stick with that as our lineup for a few games.

                      In my mind..thats:
                      PG: Tins
                      SG: Quis
                      SF: Jack
                      PF: JO
                      C: Harrington

                      You have to stick with a lineup at one point or another or they will never develop any chemistry. We wont know if players are good fits for eachother if they don't get a chance to play with eachother on a consistent basis and know eachothers tendencies and whatnot.


                      • #12
                        Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                        JO seems to be coaching the team almost as much as Carlisle is.


                        • #13
                          Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                          Ditto UB - what I am bothered by is the fact that JO is talking to the media and underminding Rick... not the place for that. Not in the paper, not on TV, and not in the locker room. Enough of this.

                          I think the team needs separation and everyone needs restraining orders from one another. Permanently.
                          "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman


                          • #14
                            Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            JO seems to be coaching the team almost as much as Carlisle is.
                            I agree with you on this one and I think that JO will be gone next year.


                            • #15
                              Re: O'Neal wants consistent rotation {IndyStar}

                              "I believe in basketball gods. I must have done something wrong. I'm trying to make it right with them. Hopefully they'll start going in soon."
                              Clearly, Al Harrington has been on my fantasy team too long. He's starting to talk like me now.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004