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

Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

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

  • Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

    Of being the only NBA team ever to double an opponent's score? Or do you think it will eventually happen again?

  • #2
    Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

    I don't know, but I distinctly remember doing a double-take when I saw that score the following morning. I thought there was a typo.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

      Help me out here, it's escaping my memory. Who was it again?
      It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

        Never happen again.

        Look at all the rest of the margins > 40 points or so. They were all high-scoring affairs, even for the losing team. There aren't even many 95-60 games in there, and that's not really close to "doubling" the score. 125-90 is still a lot more common, and I don't think anybody thinks that a final score of 180-90 is a remote possibility.

        I think the Trailblazers were working just as hard to make that (doubling of the score) happen as the Pacers were. That game turned into a farce.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

          Anyone got a box score to the game?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

            Couldn't find a box score, but the final score was 124-59.

            The game was played on February 27, 1998, and was IN Portland.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

              Someone needs to help me out here. This game is escaping my memory. What season was it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                Ha! Found it!

                NBA FINAL 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH TOTAL --- --- --- --- ----- PORTLAND 14 15 14 16 59 INDIANA 33 26 25 40 124 FINAL






                PORTLAND (59) AT INDIANA (124)

                PORTLAND REBOUNDS PLAYER POS MIN FGM-FGA FTM-FTA OFF-DEF-TOT AST PF ST TO PTS ====== === === ======= ======= =========== === == == == ===

                WALLACE F 26 6-10 2-4 0 3 3 3 3 1 3 14 GRANT F 30 0-6 0-2 1 3 4 1 2 1 3 0 SABONIS C 20 3-6 1-2 2 5 7 2 2 0 1 7 RIDER G 33 5-15 0-0 3 4 7 2 2 1 1 11 STOUDAMIRE G 31 3-10 0-0 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 6 CATO 15 1-4 1-4 1 1 2 0 5 0 2 3 ROGERS 17 0-2 0-0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 WILLIAMS 21 4-7 3-3 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 13 BRUNSON 16 0-2 1-4 0 1 1 2 3 1 0 1 AUGMON 15 1-7 0-0 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 2 ONEAL 10 1-3 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 ASKEW 6 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0

                TOTALS 240 24-72 8-19 10 18 28 16 25 10 22 59 (.333) (.421) TEAM REBS: 10 TOTAL TO: 22(25 PTS)

                INDIANA REBOUNDS PLAYER POS MIN FGM-FGA FTM-FTA OFF-DEF-TOT AST PF ST TO PTS ====== === === ======= ======= =========== === == == == ===

                MULLIN F 26 3-6 3-4 0 1 1 3 3 0 5 10 D DAVIS F 24 6-8 0-0 2 3 5 1 2 1 1 12 SMITS C 27 6-11 0-1 1 11 12 3 3 2 3 12 MILLER G 29 5-10 0-0 2 3 5 4 2 2 0 11 JACKSON G 26 6-8 2-2 0 4 4 7 0 1 1 18 A DAVIS 20 4-6 4-6 2 1 3 1 3 1 0 12 MCKEY 21 4-5 0-0 0 3 3 0 1 3 1 8 BEST 22 2-4 6-6 0 0 0 4 3 2 1 10 ROSE 22 5-9 1-1 1 6 7 8 2 1 3 13 HOIBERG 10 2-3 0-0 0 4 4 3 0 0 0 5 CROSHERE 7 4-4 0-0 0 3 3 1 1 2 2 8 WEST 6 2-3 1-2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5

                TOTALS 240 49-77 17-22 8 40 48 35 21 16 17 124 (.636) (.773) TEAM REBS: 6 TOTAL TO: 17(8 PTS)

                PORTLAND 14 15 14 16 - 59 INDIANA 33 26 25 40 - 124

                BLOCKED SHOTS: PORTLAND - SABONIS 2, WALLACE, STOUDAMIRE, CATO. INDIANA - MCKEY 3, A DAVIS, D DAVIS. 3-PT. FIELD GOALS: PORTLAND 3-17 (.176), WALLACE 0-2, SABONIS 0-1, RIDER 1-6, STOUDAMIRE 0-4, ROGERS 0-1, WILLIAMS 2-2, BRUNSON 0-1. INDIANA 9-15 (.600), MULLIN 1-3, MILLER 1-2, JACKSON 4-5, ROSE 2-4, HOIBERG 1-1. TECHNICALS: PORTLAND - HEAD COACH DUNLEAVY, WALLACE, RIDER, INDIANA - A DAVIS. OFFICIALS: JOE FORTE, GREG WILLARD, JOE BORGIA. A - 16,560. T - 1:56.






                PORTLAND (59) fg ft rb min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp Wallace 26 6-10 2-4 0-3 3 3 14 Grant 30 0-6 0-2 1-4 1 2 0 Sabonis 20 3-6 1-2 2-7 2 2 7 Rider 33 5-15 0-0 3-7 2 2 11 Stoudamire 31 3-10 0-0 2-3 3 3 6 Cato 15 1-4 1-4 1-2 0 5 3 Rogers 17 0-2 0-0 0-0 1 1 0 Williams 21 4-7 3-3 0-0 1 1 13 Brunson 16 0-2 1-4 0-1 2 3 1 Augmon 15 1-7 0-0 1-1 0 3 2 Oneal 10 1-3 0-0 0-0 0 0 2 Askew 6 0-0 0-0 0-0 1 0 0 _______________________________________________ TOTALS 240 24-72 8-19 10-28 16 25 59 _______________________________________________

                Percentages: FG-.333, FT-.421. 3-Point Goals: 3-17, .176 (Wallace 0-2, Sabonis 0-1, Rider 1-6, Stoudamire 0-4, Rogers 0-1, Williams 2-2, Brunson 0-1). Team rebounds: 10. Blocked shots: 5 (Sabonis 2, Wallace, Stoudamire, Cato). Turnovers: 22 (Augmon 3, Grant 3, Stoudamire 3, Wallace 3, Cato 2, Oneal 2, Williams 2, Askew, Rider, Rogers, Sabonis). Steals: 10 (Askew 2, Stoudamire 2, Augmon, Brunson, Grant, Rider, Rogers, Wallace).

                INDIANA (124) fg ft rb min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp Mullin 26 3-6 3-4 0-1 3 3 10 D Davis 24 6-8 0-0 2-5 1 2 12 Smits 27 6-11 0-1 1-12 3 3 12 Miller 29 5-10 0-0 2-5 4 2 11 Jackson 26 6-8 2-2 0-4 7 0 18 A Davis 20 4-6 4-6 2-3 1 3 12 Mckey 21 4-5 0-0 0-3 0 1 8 Best 22 2-4 6-6 0-0 4 3 10 Rose 22 5-9 1-1 1-7 8 2 13 Hoiberg 10 2-3 0-0 0-4 3 0 5 Croshere 7 4-4 0-0 0-3 1 1 8 West 6 2-3 1-2 0-1 0 1 5 _______________________________________________ TOTALS 240 49-77 17-22 8-48 35 21 124 _______________________________________________

                Percentages: FG-.636, FT-.773. 3-Point Goals: 9-15, .600 (Mullin 1-3, Miller 1-2, Jackson 4-5, Rose 2-4, Hoiberg 1-1). Team rebounds: 6. Blocked shots: 5 (Mckey 3, A Davis, D Davis). Turnovers: 17 (Mullin 5, Rose 3, Smits 3, Croshere 2, Best, D Davis, Jackson, Mckey). Steals: 16 (Mckey 3, Best 2, Croshere 2, Miller 2, Smits 2, A Davis, D Davis, Jackson, Rose, West). ____________________________________________ Portland 14 15 14 16 - 59 Indiana 33 26 25 40 - 124 ____________________________________________ Technical fouls: Portland 3 (Head Coach Dunleavy, 7:18 1st; Wallace, 11:48 3rd; Rider, 3:10 3rd). Indiana 1 (A Davis, 7:11 4th). Flagrant fouls: Portland 1 (Cato, 7:22 4th). A: 16,560. T: 1:56. Officials: Joe Forte, Greg Willard, Joe Borgia.












                GAME RECAP

                The Indiana Pacers posted the second-most decisive victory in NBA history, pasting the Portland Trail Blazers, 124-59, as Mark Jackson led eight players in double figures with 18 points.

                The Pacers hit 49-of-77 shots (64 percent) in their biggest victory ever, falling three points short of the NBA record, a 148-80 rout by the Cleveland Cavaliers over the Miami Heat on December 17th, 1991.

                "It is just what we needed," said Jackson. "We all played well. The ball movement was crisp and the defense was great. We must really be ready to come out and play Sunday (against Denver)."

                Travis Best, who finished with 10 points, capped the Pacers' best scoring effort of the season and gave them the final margin of victory with two free throws with 34 seconds left.

                "Our main focus was to come in and establish ourselves," said Portland coach Mike Dunleavy. "We wanted to be prepared, but we weren't. The calls went their way because they were the aggressor and they went up big. I saw what was happening so I sat our main guys so that we could prevent injury."

                Portland scored 14 points in the first and third quarters, 15 in the second and 16 in the final period in suffering the worst defeat in club history. The Trail Blazers also shattered their previous low in points, achieved on January 13th in a 76-68 loss to Miami.

                The Blazers, fresh off a 106-101 victory over the Chicago Bulls at the United Center on Wednesday, matched the NBA's second-lowest point total ever. They were two points off the all-time low.

                "There wasn't a letdown, they just played well" said Rasheed Wallace, who led Portland with 14 points. "Things just didn't go right for us. They came out of the gate fast and hit a lot of shots. We tried to make a run, but the score was too phenomenal."

                Indiana put it away early, ripping off a 16-0 run to take an 18-2 lead midway through the first period. Rik Smits had eight points and the Pacers held the Blazers scoreless for more than 6 1/2 minutes during the burst.

                "It was a tremendous game from us from start to finish," said Smits. "We thought they would be on a high by beating Chicago and I knew we had to be ready. I think we were ready."

                Leading 33-14 after one quarter, the Pacers kept the pressure up, pulling away with a 14-0 spurt. Indiana shot 59 percent (25-of-42) in the first half and held a 59-29 cushion at the break before padding its lead to 84-43 after three quarters.

                Portland made just 12 shots on 34 attempts in the opening half. Five of those baskets were made by Isaiah Rider, who scored all of his 11 points in the first half.

                "It all started with the defense in the first half," claimed Indiana coach Larry Bird. "I don't think we've played defense any better than that. Tonight we played about as well as we could. I don't care who we would have played tonight, we would have won."

                Jalen Rose finished with 13 points, eight assists and seven rebounds to lead a huge bench effort. All 12 players scored for Indiana, which got eight points on 4-of-4 shooting by seldom-used rookie Austin Croshere.

                No starter played more than 29 minutes for the Pacers. Smits and Dale Davis each scored 12 points, Reggie Miller 11 and Chris Mullin contributed 10. The Pacers were strong defensively, limiting Portland to 33 percent (24-of-72) shooting.

                Smits added 12 rebounds as Indiana enjoyed a 48-28 rebounding edge. The Pacers abused the Blazers inside, outscoring them 56-26 in the paint. Indiana was on target from long range as well, draining 9-of-15 three-pointers. Jackson, who dished out seven assists, stroked 4-of-5 shots from behind the arc.

                Even with nobody covering them, the Blazers were unable to shoot accurately. Portland was just 8-of-19 from the line, and were dismal from long range, hitting just 3-of-17 three-pointers.

                "We just have to come back and play hard against Boston," said Portland's Damon Stoudamire. "I lost a lot in Toronto, but I don't know if I ever lost like this."

                The Trail Blazers play the final game of their three-game road swing Sunday against the Celtics.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                  What's funny about that game is that Jermaine O'neal played in it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                    Originally posted by Sig Sewton
                    What's funny about that game is that Jermaine O'neal played in it.
                    I did not realize that but you are right.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                      Croshere was ON FIRE!!!
                      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                      ----------------- Reggie Miller

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                        The Pistons actually had the celtics doubled up with 4 minutes left a few years back, but boston scored the last 8 points.

                        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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                          I love how Dunleavy made it seem like the Pacers won by 20 or even 30 points but yet they won by 65 points. The Pacers could have left the court 5 minutes early and Portland wasn't going to score 50-60 points and come back.
                          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                          ----------------- Reggie Miller

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                            The Pacers hit 49-of-77 shots (64 percent) in their biggest victory ever, falling three points short of the NBA record, a 148-80 rout by the Cleveland Cavaliers over the Miami Heat on December 17th, 1991.
                            So much for sole distinction.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Will the Pacers forever hold the sole distinction...

                              Originally posted by Dr. Cox
                              So much for sole distinction.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X