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

Boston Globe Coverage of Game Two.

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

  • Boston Globe Coverage of Game Two.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...1/sub_mission/

    Sub mission
    Celtics roll over in 4th quarter against charged-up Indiana reserves
    By Shira Springer, Globe Staff | April 21, 2004

    INDIANAPOLIS -- Ron Artest watched Game 2 of this series from an undisclosed location, banned from Conseco Fieldhouse because of a one-game suspension for leaving the bench during an altercation in Game 1. The four Pacers who usually start alongside Artest watched most of the fourth quarter from the bench, sidelined in favor of more-than-capable reserves with almost unstoppable offensive momentum. Artest or no Artest, starters or no starters, the Pacers outmanned and eventually outplayed the Celtics last night.

    The Celtics suffered an embarrassing fourth-quarter collapse and, in the process, may have squandered their best opportunity at taking a game in this series. Shooting 61 percent in the final quarter, Indiana rode the offensive talents of Fred Jones, Austin Croshere, and Jonathan Bender to a 103-90 victory. Even without Artest as a defensive shadow, Paul Pierce (27 points, 7 rebounds) and his mates proved no match for the talent and toughness of the Pacers. The Celtics head home for Game 3 at the FleetCenter Friday down two games to none.

    Asked what happened during the fourth quarter, Chucky Atkins, who never shies away from the increasingly unpleasant truth, said, "It's self-explanatory. We're [expletive] soft. I don't really know what to say. We played so good for three quarters, then when it got to the heart of the game, they just out-toughed us.

    "We don't care if Ron Artest plays or he doesn't play. We had an opportunity to win the game. When we just give away a game like that, that [expletive] is terrible. That's ridiculous. Tonight's game, we gave it away.

    "It just seemed like [the Pacers] wanted it more than us. They gave the extra effort. They fought harder. They had more intestinal fortitude than us and that's sad because I haven't been on a team like that in a while."

    The Pacers entered the fourth quarter behind, 69-65, despite scoring the final 4 points of the third quarter. When Croshere hit a 3-pointer with 1.7 seconds remaining in the third, he sparked an 18-1 run. Atkins momentarily stopped the bleeding when he went in for a driving layup. But Bender hit a 3-pointer to give Indiana a double-digit lead (82-72) with 7:20 remaining.

    While the Celtics squandered a lead that reached 9 points early in the third, the Pacers were not about to do the same. Jones (12 of his 17 points in the fourth), Croshere (6 of his 10), and Bender (9 of his 11) kept piling on the points with a little help from the late return of starters Jermaine O'Neal (22 points, 11 rebounds) and Jamaal Tinsley (15 points, 6 assists).

    Al Harrington filled in admirably for Artest, with 12 points and 13 rebounds.

    We just wanted to come out and play well and show how deep we are," said O'Neal. "We wanted to get this one for Ron because we knew how bad he wanted to be here. As far as me, I struggled big-time and was not sure that I wanted to go back in the game because Bender, Fred, and Austin were really picking us up. We had good chemistry with that group and I just wasn't sure I could come in and keep that chemistry."

    While the Pacers took pride in their depth, interim Celtics coach John Carroll described his team's second-half offense as "horrendous."

    The Celtics shot 33 percent in the second half, recording just 5 assists on 9 field goals. They committed 9 turnovers, which resulted in 15 points for the Pacers. They were outscored, 12-6 on the break, 24-8 in the paint and 13-3 in second-chance points. It was a dramatic reversal of fortune from the first half.

    "We're not a very mature basketball team, and it showed in the fourth quarter," said Carroll. "And it's a shame because we played a very good basketball game up to that point. Unfortunately, the game is 48 minutes, and to win a playoff game on the road, you've got to finish."

    Pacers coach Rick Carlisle had talked about holding Boston to around 20 points per quarter. The Celtics scored 22 in the first and 24 in the second. That should have been good news for the Pacers, but they still trailed at the half, 46-41.

    The numbers that should have concerned Carlisle were fast-break points and turnovers. Boston outscored Indiana, 19-6, on the break in the first half, dictating the kind of quick pace that benefits the Green. On top of that, the Pacers did not take care of the ball, committing 9 turnovers that resulted in 14 points for the visitors.

    Meanwhile, the Celtics improved in all the areas where they needed to most. They moved the ball with greater effectiveness, recording 12 assists on 18 field goals in the first half, shot 45 percent from the floor and did not allow the Pacers to mount a sizable rebounding advantage. But Boston's biggest accomplishment was its consistency in the half.

    That was before it unraveled in the second half.

    "I guess our team's true colors came out in the [fourth quarter]," said Pierce. "When you're in a tough game, in a tough environment like this one was, in a game of this magnitude, we just didn't have the intestinal fortitude to bounce back from the adversity that we were having."





    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb..._how_its_done/
    Giving it their best just won't be enough
    By Peter May, Globe Staff | April 21, 2004

    INDIANAPOLIS -- Depth is a wonderful thing. So, too, is maturity. The Pacers had both last night when it mattered.

    The Celtics looked like Justin Rose at Augusta, coming up strong early and then wilting down the stretch. The Pacers turned into Phil Mickelson on the back nine -- making every big shot. Except it was as if Mickelson's caddie were making the big shots.

    It was a mind-boggling sight: Indiana starters Jermaine O'Neal, Reggie Miller, Jamaal Tinsley, and Jeff Foster standing and cheering as the subs sliced, diced, and filleted the Celtics with numbing efficiency. O'Neal said after Indiana's 103-90 victory that the reserves were playing so well "it got to the point where I almost didn't want to go back in there because you don't want to mess things up." Eventually he did, but only because Austin Croshere got winded.

    That's the humbling truth, sports fans. The Celtics are now in an 0-2 hole in this best-of-seven series and are there because they got overwhelmed in the fourth quarter by Rick Carlisle's reserves.

    Paul Pierce lamented that the Celtics' "true colors as a young team" showed in that fourth quarter, the one in which Indiana outscored the Celtics, 38-21, outrebounded them, 13-5, outshot them, 61 percent to 33 percent, and had no turnovers to Boston's two. "We lost our composure," he said.

    Here's who was on the floor for Boston when, as Pierce noted, the Celtics' "true colors" showed as a young team: Pierce, Chucky Atkins, Walter McCarty, Ricky Davis, and Mark Blount. That's four-fifths of the starting five. That's not a particularly young team and it's not a particularly inexperienced team. Four of those five have been to the conference finals.

    But it was a unit that certainly did lose its composure, no question, in the face of an onslaught led by Fred Jones, Jonathan Bender, Croshere, Anthony Johnson, and Al Harrington. That's one-fifth of the Indy starting five -- and only because Harrington got the starting nod last night over the suspended Ron Artest. Croshere didn't even play in Game 1. All that was missing was injecting Kenny Anderson into the mix.

    Pierce got it half-right: The Celtics did lose their composure. But don't start blaming this one on being too young or too inexperienced. Marcus Banks was watching. Jiri Welsch was watching for most of it. Chris Mihm was watching. Bully Brandon Hunter was watching.

    Simply, the bottom fell out -- and it fell out while the people John Carroll wants and needs to be out there were out there. And they were embarrassed by the Indiana subs, who knocked down threes, drove to the basket and put the game away by outscoring the Celtics, 18-1, over a stretch of four minutes in the third and fourth quarters.

    It fell out because you're starting to see why one of these teams won 61 games and steamrolled through the East and the other struggled to win 36 games and back-doored its way into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed by losing five straight down the stretch. Not to belabor the obvious, but do you think Indiana could start its reserves and still take this thing in five or six games? It sure looks that way. And, oh yes, this is the playoffs. Indiana's up again. Golden State is not coming through that door anytime soon.

    Carroll was talking before the game about the absence of Artest, who will be back in full defensive bore Friday night for Game 3 in Boston. Carroll said he was still concerned about the Pacers because they are a deep team that did win 61 games and, although he didn't say it, were 6-2 in the games Artest missed because of injuries or suspension.

    "Unfortunately, I was right," Carroll said afterward.

    The coach talked about how disappointing it was "to fold like that in the fourth quarter." He talked about the Celtics being a boat with 20 holes and having only 10 plugs. He called his team's second-half offense "horrendous."

    And, he said, the team showed its immaturity in the fourth quarter.

    That's one way to describe a meltdown. But the truth is more that the Celtics are overmatched -- and that their best players, their most experienced players, were on the floor when the meltdown occurred.

    All that means is what we've known for a while: that Danny Ainge has a lot of work to do to get this team to where he wants it to be. And that what he has right now might not be good enough to beat the Pacers' B team. That certainly was the case last night when the game was on the line.





    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb..._office_perch/


    Bird has taken to front-office perch
    He is enjoying success and is seen as successor
    By Peter May, Globe Staff | April 21, 2004

    INDIANAPOLIS -- It's the desk. It really is. There is no more visible manifestation of the transformation of Larry Bird from former player/coach/personnel czar to future omnipotent ruler of the Indiana Pacers. It's huge.

    "You could land an airplane on that thing," said current Pacers president Donnie Walsh.

    Bird explains that he needed a taller and wider-than-usual desk to accommodate his knees. He notes with pride that the desk was made in Paoli, Ind., which is near his hometown of French Lick. On the desk is an item that one finds it hard to envision being a part of Bird's life: a spiffy laptop with a even spiffier-looking mouse. Can a cellphone be far behind?

    "I have one," Bird shrugged, "but I left it in my car."

    Welcome to the new world of Bird the executive. If there ever was one NBA player who seemed not destined for a job behind a desk, whatever its size, it would be Bird. But, then again, he fooled us once when he decided to coach -- something he once said he'd never do -- and now he's back as, officially, the Pacers' president of basketball operations.

    He's now learning about the business of basketball, the pick-and-rolls -- and flagrant fouls -- of the boardroom. He's going to meetings. He's calling meetings, for goodness sakes. He's overseeing budgets.

    "I'm always under budget," he says proudly. There's a shocker.

    He attended the Competition Committee meetings, a consortium of general managers and coaches who go over rules. He just returned from the NBA Board of Governors meeting with Walsh, a longtime NBA executive, rubbing elbows with the millionaires and billionaires.

    "I wanted to give him an idea of how the league works," Walsh said.

    Offered Bird, "It's a good opportunity for me. It's all new. It's all interesting. I like new things."

    Make no mistake, Bird's priority is still the product on the floor. And in his first year on the job, he's done a pretty good job, judging by the Pacers' NBA-best 61-21 record. But he didn't come back to the Pacers solely to run the basketball operation. At some point, Walsh, who has been here 20 years in many capacities, will step down. The plan is for Bird to take his place.

    "In the job he's in," said Walsh, "you've got to be here, do a lot of planning. For his future, it's important to understand how the franchise works, financially, in every way. As a result, that requires that you're in here a lot and becoming aware of all the issues, not just the basketball issues, but the business issues, too. When the time comes for him to make the decisions he is going to have to make, he's going to know the whole inner workings of the franchise. That's the plan -- to replace me."

    Bird knows that, but it's not something he scripted. If he had his druthers, he'd be in Charlotte now, preparing for the first season of the expansion team known as the Bobcats. But that opportunity was denied him -- he still his scars from that one -- and he ended up here, back in a zone with even more comfort than Boston.

    "When I got out, I was staying out," he said. "It was Dave Gavitt who convinced me that I needed to stay in the game, that it would be good for the game and good for me. And I had to have something to do."

    He and Walsh coexist seamlessly. Walsh gladly ceded the basketball duties to Bird, although his office is next door to The One With The Desk and Bird enthusiastically bounces thoughts off the former general manager. This week, for instance, Bird was salivating over some unnamed draft prospect who scored a lot of points -- always a big plus for No. 33.

    Eventually, basketball will be only a part of the job description. Bird will need to know about broadcast rights and signage and all the other silly stuff that has turned the NBA from a basketball league into a marketing showcase. Walsh made it clear that he is more than happy with the choice of his successor and is confident Bird will be more than up to the task.

    "You know, when you ask him for an opinion, it always surprises me that he's more informed than he should be," Walsh said. "I think he must be doing his own investigations. I like the way he looks at things, which is on a very straight line, concise and clear. And I think that really helps you as an executive. A lot of people can be all around the issue and not see the main issue. He sees the main issue right away. And that's what you expect out of somebody at this level."





    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...ell_the_story/



    With power in reserve, Pacers are lighting it up
    Pacers' backups spark big fourth-quarter run
    By Hank Lowenkron, Globe Correspondent | April 21, 2004

    INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana bench made it 2 for 2 in this Eastern Conference playoff series with Boston, sparking the Pacers past the Celtics, 103-90, last night.

    ADVERTISEMENT


    With Ron Artest suspended by the NBA for leaving the bench in Game 1 Saturday, Al Harrington moved off the bench and started.

    Still, the bench didn't miss a beat as it outscored the Celtics' reserves, 43-11.

    Boston was leading, 69-61, with 30 seconds remaining in the third quarter. Austin Croshere, who didn't play a second in Game 1, ignited an 18-1 run that sent the Pacers to Boston for Game 3 Friday night with a 2-0 advantage in the best-of-seven series. Croshere cut the deficit to 69-65 by making a free throw and a 3-pointer before the end of the period.

    Croshere (10 points) tied the score at 69 with a fast-break basket as the Pacers opened the final quarter with 7 consecutive points.

    Reserves scored all the points in the big run, with guard Fred Jones recording 12 of his 17 points in the final quarter and 7-footer Jonathan Bender scoring 9 of his 11 points.

    They were among six Pacers to finish in double figures. Jermaine O'Neal led the way with 22 points and had a game-high 11 rebounds. Jamaal Tinsley had 15 points and 6 assists, while Harrington had 12 points and 13 rebounds.

    "We came in and really picked up the energy," said Croshere, whose willingness to work without worrying about his minutes all season was a big reason Indiana finished the season with a league-best 61-21 record. "We made a big point of limiting their fast-break opportunities, forcing them into shots they didn't want to take.

    "Al and Jonathan did a great job of hitting the boards. Our energy was that much higher than them in that run."

    Croshere isn't surprised by the reserves' success in the first two games.

    "A big part of our team all year has been our second unit," he said. "For guys like us who don't get an opportunity to play big minutes in the fourth quarter on a night-in and night-out basis, it is something you really take a lot of pride in when you have the chance."

    Croshere said his role on the team is "just a matter of being professional and being ready. If you're the 10th man on the team, that's my role and I have to perform the best I can."

    Reggie Miller cited Croshere for his contributions all season.

    "He's the consummate pro," said Miller. "He always stays focused and stays ready. He's like me, one of the first guys here and one of the last to leave."

    Jones, who has come off the bench to score 26 points in the two games while hitting 11 of 16 shots, was 3 for 4 from behind the arc.

    "We've got all the confidence in the world in our second team," he said. "We're showing we can play with anybody. I know they're laying off of me and giving me the open shot. They expect me to drive. I've got my confidence up and I feel like I'm going to hit every shot I take."

    Bender said the Pacers have a special incentive in the playoffs.

    "We want to get a ring for Big Pops," he said in reference to the 38-year-old Miller, who has hinted he might retire if the Pacers win the championship.

    The absence of Artest also provided incentive.

    "We knew we had to step up," said Bender. "Ron is an All-Star, the most valuable defensive player in the league. Anybody that is missing a guy like him is going to struggle a little bit. Fortunately, we were able to regroup and win the game."

  • #2
    Re: Boston Globe Coverage of Game Two.

    "Not to belabor the obvious, but do you think Indiana could start its reserves and still take this thing in five or six games? It sure looks that way."

    It sure does!

    Comment

    Working...
    X