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

Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
    With the amount of good to very good point guards there are in this league, I'm still struggling to find a reason as to why we gave Hill the amount we did. 6'3" combo guards are a dime a dozen, and in no way is Hill elite at his position.
    Yes and his pay check is not elite either.
    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      Strictly based on #s, per 36 minutes, each of those players is either slightly below, right at, or slightly above Hill statistically yet making roughly $4+ million per season less. And please understand that Hill plays a lot of minutes to generate the stats he does. People can complain about a few on the list, but that list, + all of the rookie contract players on par or better than Hill, + the other combo guards I didn't list between $5mil - $7.5mil per season should be enough to tell anybody that quality players for $5mil or less at the point/combo guard position are a dime a dozen. Watching him brick shot after shot in crunch time tonight only strengthened my belief that his contract was a huge mistake and may cost us the shot at a player who could greatly help us, or even hinder us in resigning the likes of West or Stephenson or George.
      Not based on per 36, do you actually believe the players I singled out would be able to step into a starting role and be as valuable as Hill? Hill's been struggling as late but I have no doubt he'll return to early season form when HE was the one carrying out entire team on his back offensively.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Boy, I sure hope that we do get a chance to see this roster with everyone healthy and in their NORMAL game toward the end of the season. Certainly the flu will leave and DG seems to be a certain return. Hopefully that will be the end of that and maybe we could also get Roy shooting just a bit better. That would be a hellava team.
        My thoughts exactly. This team with a healthy roster performing in stride looks downright SCARY good.

        As for tonight, didn't see the second half. Coming off an all-nighter fundraiser and napping took up most of the day so didn't see the officiating. Tend to agree with the crowd that this isn't a bad loss. No such thing as a good loss but sounds like 36 solid minutes then just ran out of gas and luck in the fourth. Hopefully the break between gives these guys some rest to be set for Charlotte.

        Also find it funny how we're talking about how we need Lance now. Wasn't that long ago people were thinking Larry was crazy for A) drafting him and B) keeping him around. Really proud he's proved us wrong and has made great strides this year.
        Forever struggling to convince myself "In Larry we trust"
        Writer at NoseBleedSectionSports.com

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

          Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
          Not sure I understand your post. Roy was certainly outplayed by Lopez, who put up 15 and 9. Also, Roy committed some dumb fouls (and some poorly called fouls) that led him to sit more than you would like. Overall, their bigs outworked ours on the glass. That wasn't really the point of my post which was that the Nets owned the fourth quarter.
          His point was simple, actually. If Kobe had a night like the one Lopez had, people would pile on him again. My guess is that they'd say the following:

          "Yes, Roy had a good 4th quarter but that doesn't excuse him from the 3 hideous quarter that he played prior to that. I mean he shot 35.7% and got stuffed 4 times. What kind of 7 footer gets stuffed 4 times? Roy is just unbelievably soft. Lopez would outplay him if it wasn't for his foul trouble!"

          Actually, the last argument has already been used

          Look, I'm not trying to say that Roy played better than Lopez. He didn't. The foul trouble was mainly his fault despite some dubious calls.

          But it wasn't him that was outworked on the glass. Brook had 2 offensive boards. Roy had 2 offensive boards as well. It was their PFs that out-worked ours. Reggie Evans had 3 offensive boards. Kris Humphries had 5 offensive boards. David West had an awesome offensive game but he didn't grab a single offensive rebound in 34 minutes (although he did battle for some). Tyler Hansbrough played 12 minutes and didn't grab a single rebound. It's clear as day which players were outworked and which ones weren't.

          It's just that people will continue to pile on Roy no matter what because this is the current narrative. People did this last year with DC as well.
          Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
          Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

          Panopticon

          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

            I doubt there would be complaints if Hibbert scored 10 points in the 4th quarter. Especially if he drained 3 consecutive from mid-range. I'll give Hibbert credit for shutting down Lopez's post up game as he usually does. But the Pacers had no answer when Lopez adjusted and started hitting from outside.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Terry
              35 years old averaging 10.6 PPG, 2.4 APG and 2.1 RPG. Lost starting job the moment Avery Bradley came back.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Felton
              Shooting less than 40%. He is averaging 15.8 PPG, 6.3 APG and 2.9 RPG. Really important for the Knicks as he is their primary shot creator and the reason for their good ball movement. Good penetrator but bad shooter. Injury prone. Ball dominant. Coming off his worst season ever.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Kidd
              39 years old. He cannot penetrate anymore and is often relegated to a spot up shooter.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Lowry
              Very good player. He is averaging 14.4 PPG, 6 APG and 4.7 RPG. Terrific rebounder, high energy player. Unfortunately, he is very injury prone. He has only played a full 82 game season once. And he is in his 7th season.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Hinrich
              Averaging 6.6 PPG, 5.5 APG and 2.7 RPG. Good shooter, good defender. 32 year old. Dependable vet in his 10th season. In his prime you could say that he was similar to George Hill.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Robinson
              Averaging 10.9 PPG, 3.6 APG and 2 RPG. Really undersized at 5'9. Opposing guards just exploit his size defensively. High energy player that has the ability to shoot you in or out of a game.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Sessions
              Averaging 14.1 PPG, 4 APG and 2.8 RPG. He's having a bad shooting season (under 40% from the field and under 30% from 3). Lakers fans used to complain about his defense. Bobcats fans complain about him because they think he shoots too much.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Lou Williams
              Averaging 14.9 PPG, 3.7 APG, 2.2 RPG and 1.2 SPG. High energy player that has the ability to shoot you in and out of a game. His shot selection is suspect. But he is a good player. Personally, I prefer Hill due to his D but one could make a case for Lou.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Chalmers
              Averaging 7.5 PPG, 3.4 APG, 2.4 RPG and 1.6 SPG. He mainly plays off the ball. Good shooter from downtown (Hill has a better career averaged but Rio is shooting it much better this season). Good defender. But he's not a shot creator and isn't much of a penetrator either. Miami fans hate him this season and consider him one of the worst PGs in the league.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Jordan Crawford
              Averaging 15.6 PPG, 4.6 APG and 4 RPG. He probably has the worst shot selection in the league. He has never met a shot he didn't like. Not much of a defender. But he can beat everyone off the dribble.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Jamal Crawford
              Mainly a SG but has a great size (6'6). He is 32 years old and he's in his 13th season. He's averaging 16.2 PPG, 3.1 APG and 2.3 RPG. He is good but he's older than what we were looking for.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Brooks
              Averaging 9.1 PPG, 2.7 APG and 1.9 RPG. He had a great year in Houston but according to Sacramento fans he's just a "glorified chucker that's halting the progress of the Thomas and Jimmer" now. Not a good defender due to his size (probably less than 6'0 and only 161 lbs).

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Mayo
              Averaging 18.2 PPG, 3.8 APG and 3.7 RPG. Not a PG. He's a SG with some playmaking. He is turnover prone (2.9 turnovers per game). We tried to acquire him twice but the deal fell through. In FA, he chose a one-year contract and a starting spot in order to earn a good paycheck since has underutilized in Memphis.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Vasquez
              Averaging 14.2 PPG, 9.2 APG and 4.5 RPG. Great size (6'6) and natural playmaking ability. He is a front-runner for Most Improved Player as he has improved majorly in every statistical category. He went from 8.9 PPG to 14.2 PPG, from 5.4 APG to 9.2 APG and from 2.6 RPG to 4.5 RPG. He also imrpoved his 3 pt% from 31.9% to 39.4%. It's safe to say that few people expected that jump.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Neal
              Mainly a SG. He went undrafted and he was a journeyman in Europe 'till the Spurs picked him up. He is averaging 10.4 PPG, 1.8 APG and 3.9 RPG. Good 3 point shooter.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Barea
              Averaging 10.7 PPG, 4.4 APG and 3.3 RPG. Quick player that can run the PnR. Decent shooter, can score has good vision. But he's getting killed defensively because he is undersized. Most NBA sources have him listed a 6'0 but that's a lie. His mother has been cited to say that he's a bit smaller than 5'11. His wife is 5'9 and he does not seem a lot taller than her.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Ridnour
              Averaging 11.6 PPG, 4.2 APG, 2.9 RPG and 1.2 SPG. He is 31 years old and he is in his 10th season. He's a dependable vet. Had a great shooting year in his first season with Minny.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Shved
              Averaging 11.2 PPG, 4.7 APG and 2.6 RPG. He's still a rookie. He is 6'6 and is a true combo guard. He's shooting below 40% at the moment but I expect this to go up. Athletic player with good handles, excellent vision and flashy passing skills. He is a stud but he was completely unknown in the US. I'd love to have him here. It's too bad that sometimes the Pacers seem to completely ignore International FAs. We should make better use of that market just like the Spurs.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Foye
              Mainly a SG. He's averaging 11.1 PPG, 1.8 APG and 1.6 RPG. He's having a good shooting season at least (42.8% from deep). But I wouldn't even come close to prefer him over Hill.

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              nor does it include the combo guards who are making less than Hill and yet clearly superior, such as Conley.
              Conley is only paid $7.18M this year but he has a backloaded contract. He will be making $8.76 in 14-15 and $9.68 in 15-16. The Grizzlies are going to have to resign Speights and Bayless in 14-15 and they'll have to resign Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay and Darrell Arthur in 15-16 (if Zach and Darrell pick up their player options in 14-15). Conley's contract makes it significantly harder for them to do so.

              Hill is on a flat contract that doesn't take anything away from our flexibility when we're going to need to resign West, Granger, PG and Lance. A front-loaded contract would be better given our cap space this season but flat contracts are always good.

              Also, Hill got a $40M for 5 years deal whereas Conley got a $45M for 5 years deal. Conley is paid significantly more than Hill overall.

              As far as the clearly superior part is concerned.

              Hill is averaging 14.6 PPG, 5 APG, 4.4 RPG, 0.9 SPG and 0.4 BPG this season. He is shooting 41.9% from the field, 34.6% from deep and 86.1% from the line. He is also averaging 1.8 turnovers per game.

              Mike Conley is averaging 13.3 PPG, 6.2 APG, 2.7 RPG, 2.4 SPG and 0.2 BPG this season. He is shooting 41.6% from the field, 38% from deep and 83.6% from the line. He is also averaging 2.6 turnovers per game.

              So, let's compare the two. Hill is scoring more. Conley is assisting more. Hill is a better rebounder. Conley has a significant advantage in steals (although, this can be attributed on the Grizs' aggressive defense that tries to create a lot of turnovers in contract with our conservative approach in defense). Hill has a sizeable advantage in blocks. Hill is shooting slightly better from the field and from the line but Conley is shooting better from deep. Conley is more turnover prone than Hill.

              I clearly remember a thread that appeared one week ago (or so) that compared the PGs that came out of Indiana (Hill, Conley and Teague). You will find several interesting facts there that point out that Hill was indeed the right player to choose.
              Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
              Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

              Panopticon

              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                Originally posted by OrganizedConfusion View Post
                But the Pacers had no answer when Lopez adjusted and started hitting from outside.
                That's nothing new. That's the shot that our defense allows the other team to take. If they take it and make it then good for them, they can beat us. But it's also the lowest percentage shot in basketball so most teams will not make it.
                Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                Panopticon

                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                  Originally posted by OrganizedConfusion View Post
                  I doubt there would be complaints if Hibbert scored 10 points in the 4th quarter. Especially if he drained 3 consecutive from mid-range. I'll give Hibbert credit for shutting down Lopez's post up game as he usually does. But the Pacers had no answer when Lopez adjusted and started hitting from outside.

                  which is right after Roy went out with his 5th (bad call) and he just stuffed him for the 4th time, don't blame that on Roy, someone lost a man and all he had was a bad hot that fell 5 for 14 he was, we don't take kindly to those percentages with our own players
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                    Watching him brick shot after shot in crunch time tonight only strengthened my belief that his contract was a huge mistake and may cost us the shot at a player who could greatly help us, or even hinder us in resigning the likes of West or Stephenson or George.
                    Sooo I guess crunch time shots against TOR, LA, SAC twice, PHI, POR, PHX, and CHA (just off memory) don't count.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      With the amount of good to very good point guards there are in this league, I'm still struggling to find a reason as to why we gave Hill the amount we did. 6'3" combo guards are a dime a dozen, and in no way is Hill elite at his position.
                      You gotta be kidding me. He had a bad game. For $8 mill per season, he's a steal.

                      I hate it when a player has a bad game and all of sudden the complaining starts. Hill is still probably a little sick
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                        I never complain about the refs, but last night was pretty bad. And I don't base that at all on the free throw attempt differential - that proves nothing. I base that just on watching the game and thinking wow that was a bad call against the pacers several times - again and again.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                          Nets are still shooting free throws apparently...

                          I haven't been so pissed for a so badly "ref-ed" Pacers game like ever. Oh well, roll on Tuesday against the Bobcats. A difficult game mind. Not as yesterday's game but still difficult.
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I never complain about the refs, but last night was pretty bad. And I don't base that at all on the free throw attempt differential - that proves nothing. I base that just on watching the game and thinking wow that was a bad call against the pacers several times - again and again.
                            I agree, I think the non calls that the Nets should have gotten was ridiculous. Baby touch foul at one end on the Pacers and body slams on the other end that was ok! I couldn't believe my eyeballs.
                            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                              I have seldom seen such a poor performance by the officials. The foul calls were laughable.

                              O. Johnson should do the PG24 - get up early and hit the practice court and take 500 shots. It is ridiculous how poorly he has shot the ball so far. Inexcusable.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers/Nets Postgame Thread 1/13/13

                                Just gonna say - Deron Williams is a pretty hard cover for any G in the NBA. His numbers were pretty on par with his season averages, so I don't think Hill did that bad of a job on Deron. He's just an elite PG and he WILL score and do what he does. Its impossible to just give instructions at the NBA level to another player and tell them - just do this, you'll shut them down! It just doesn't work like that for certain players.
                                follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X