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

12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

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

  • 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

    CRUSH THE CAVS



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: Z. Zarba, E. Lewis, B. Taylor

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

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


    10-11
    Home: 5-3
    East: 4-5
    5-17
    Away: 2-11
    East: 3-9
    Dec 14
    Dec 15
    Dec 18
    Dec 19
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    8:00pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    VAREJAO
    THOMPSON
    GEE
    MILES
    IRVING


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)




    CAVALIERS
    Daniel Gibson - hyperextended right elbow (questionable)
    Dion Waiters - left ankle sprain (day-to-day)



    Jared Wade: Breaking Down a Broke-Down Offense - Poor Spacing

    This week, the Pacers have edged out a win in Chicago and out-classed Portland at home
    to bring their record on the season above .500 for the first time since November 3. Given
    how depressing this team looked over its first 10 games of the year, that is actually a big
    step forward. But for a franchise that entered the season expecting to have home-court
    advantage in the first round of the playoffs, this season has still been a disappointment.

    Throughout the year, especially early, the Pacers have spaced the floor poorly. Paul
    George and, surprisingly, Lance Stephenson have both shot the ball well from beyond the
    arc so this seemingly shouldn’t be a huge issue. You have George Hill initiating an offense
    that is, for better or worse, based upon getting the ball inside to the bigs, and you just
    make sure the two wings stay far enough away from the basket to both leave room for
    the tall guys to work and be a threat to make a shot worth three points.

    There is nothing too complex about that. And to his credit, it seems to be something that
    is intended to be a part of Frank Vogel’s offense.

    One of the problems, then, is just a lackadaisical approach to proper spacing that is all
    too common. The perimeter players are the worst offenders. The more film you watch,
    the more often you see them just slowly drifting without purpose through the no man’s
    land that is the mid-range — or worse, with their heels on the three-point line.


    If you’re going to run your offense through two giant men and ask them to score with their
    back to the hoop, you must provide them the room to do so. Roy Hibbert — with his giant
    frame, lumbering approach and general lack of quickness — needs more space than most
    to do his thing. This isn’t a criticism as much as it is just a recognition that he isn’t Zach
    Randolph, a guy who can score over a double team of Josh Smith clones in a phone booth.

    Roy has sweeping, long moves that were all the rage in the 1990s. Today, they are not
    only less practiced, they are more difficult. Teams now routinely have three front-court
    players whose wingspans each near 7 feet. That means there are hands everywhere and
    rotating helpside defenders at every turn. So if you’re going to dump him the ball and
    ask him to get buckets, you have to — quite literally — put him in a position to succeed.
    And that means you have to force the defense to make a choice: play him with a smaller
    man or double. What you absolutely cannot do is have players not involved in the primary
    offensive action standing in a place where his man can both bother Roy’s move and keep
    guarding him. In short, you can’t allow one guy to defend to players.

    That means spacing the floor with precision.

    This isn’t just some buzz word that agents use to get their “stretch four” Ryan Anderson
    money. It is completely necessary in a post-Tom Thibodeau world. Standing 21 feet from
    the hoop when you’re supposed to be 24 feet from the hoop makes a huge difference. By
    doing so, you both permit your defender to still be in the way and put yourself in a place
    where the defense wants you to shoot from.

    So, to me, one of the biggest ways Frank Vogel could improve the efficiency of this
    offense is to mandate that his players get to their spots. That they stand with precision.
    It’s not a big ask...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s


    Jared Dubin: Varejao’s Jumper Has Expanded His Pick-and-Roll Attack

    Most people think of Anderson Varejao as merely a hustle player, one who does
    the dirty work to create extra possessions for his team and not much else. Maybe
    it’s because he’s missed parts of the last two seasons and that’s the lasting image
    we have of him, but there are plenty of people who haven’t noticed the leaps and
    bounds of improvement Varejao has made. The thing is, Varejao is a hustle player,
    but he’s also become so much more. He’s quietly improved nearly every aspect of
    his offensive game to compliment his already fantastic defense, and I’d argue that
    it starts with his willingness to take and ability to make jumpers.


    This is Varejao’s shot chart for the 2012-13 season. He’s 13-for-25 from the
    highlighted area, good for 52% from the field. Those 25 shots average out to 1.56
    shots per game in the 16 games Varejao has played so far. In his career prior to
    this year, Varejao had attempted just 165 shots from those three areas of the court
    in 444 career games – about 0.37 per game – and had made only 62 of those shots,
    good for 37.6% from the field.

    Maybe it’s because he didn’t play that much due to injury, but teams haven’t seemed
    to notice that Varejao had been improving from that range the past few seasons.
    Over the three years prior to this one, from 2009-2012, Varejao went 21-47 from
    those locations on the floor, 44.7%.

    But it’s partially the lingering perception of Varejao as an unskilled hustle player that
    allows things like this to happen.


    Varejao has about 10 feet of space between himself and the closest defender as he
    lines up this jumper off the pick-and-roll. He knocks it down, but when the Cavs go
    back to the same play a little less than three minutes later, he’s left wide open yet
    again.


    And two more times throughout the third quarter alone, Phoenix leaves Varejao wide
    open for one of those mid-range shots around the free throw line that he’s become
    adept at hitting these past few years. There’s never even a defender within three or
    four feet of him. They’re free jumpers.

    When the Suns finally got sick of watching Varejao knock down wide open jumpers
    with no one contesting...CONTINUE READING AT HOOP CHALK


    Robert Attenweiler: Why We Watch - Dion Waiters, Network Television

    All rookies are, in some way, like episodes of The A-Team. The better ones are
    like better episodes.




    For most my life I thought I would be able to escape the trappings of a life built
    around superstition. My father is the most logical man I know; my older brother
    falls in the same quadrant. But my mother could not be more attuned to signs and
    coincidences, to fate and faith. I am the last link in the chain, so I figured it’d only
    be a matter of time before I confirmed my own suspicion that a servitude to mystic
    semiotics is an inheritable trait. I always was a momma’s boy.

    Last weekend, I spent several hours in front of a laptop introducing my nephew to
    the first season of “The A-Team.” It was fitting in its to-everything-turn-turn-turn
    way, as when the show debuted in 1983, when I was every bit as much an eight-
    year-old as Max is now. And there are many ways that “The A-Team,” despite
    being a one-hour “drama” originally aired in prime time, is custom made for the
    eight-year old’s imagination. There is virtually no way in which it is anything but
    that: the team builds stuff, dress up in costumes and lay excruciatingly bare the
    outer reaches of their limits as actors every week, as Hannibal wince-inducingly
    plays an Asian laundry owner or Face tacks on a couldn’t-possibly-ever-be-
    mistaken-for-Texas accent in his con as an oil baron. Also, as viewers will know,
    “The A-Team” features Howlin' Mad Murdock and Mr. T. “The A-Team” is fantastic.
    This is not news.

    But watching “The A-Team” isn’t so simple these days. The show seems so patently
    ridiculous now, although there is a chance that it always—or always intended to—
    seemed that way. To enjoy an episode of “The A-Team” now is a struggle, primarily
    because virtually every thing about it, from the costumes to the central conceit—
    bad-asses in a custom van, driving around icing local bad guys—is absolutely
    contrary to everything you and I and everyone else regard as quality television. I
    mention all of this only because the sensation of watching an episode of "The A-
    Team" happens to be what it feels like watching Dion Waiters play professional
    basketball.

    So much of what Waiters does on the court is counter to what I have come to
    believe is truest and best and most valuable in the game of basketball. Some of
    this is simply and inevitably the product of Waiters' youth, and his presence in a
    grown-man's game. So of course at this point in his career, Waiters is practically
    Sisyphean in his efficiency; think about how crisp your execution was at age 20. In
    the three games before his recent ankle sprain—though exacerbated, one might
    argue, by an even greater share of the offensive burden than he had before Kyrie
    Irving’s finger injury and a relative invisibility to the officials’ whistles when he
    drives to the basket—Waiters had managed to shoot 24, 38 and 35 percent, which
    is all horrifyingly right around the 36% he’s shooting from the floor this year. He
    is (how to put this politely?) subject to consistent failure on defense. The reason
    I’ve taken to calling my new favorite Cavalier “Bulletproof,” not because he seems
    indestructible, but because it invariably looks as if he has been hit in mid-air by a
    sniper’s bullet every time he takes a jump shot. He is young and unfinished and
    plays like it. So, yes, there are problems. There are a lot of problems.

    ***

    But Waiters is also a rookie playing a ton of minutes—10 more per night than he
    did during his sole season at Syracuse, where, it’s further worth noting, he would
    have already played nearly a full season’s worth of games. So it's no surprise that
    Waiters is still figuring out how his game translates to the NBA on a team missing
    its closer (Irving) if not its anchor (the brilliant, brilliant, so brilliant Anderson
    Varejao) and playing in front of a fan base that, while bereft of ultimate successes,
    has also been spoiled by two rookies in the past decade that made the transition to
    the pros look as simple as putting on differently colored clothing. Waiters will also
    have games like he did against the Clippers or (my favorite) recently against the
    Atlanta Hawks in which he is something else and entirely more exhilarating: a
    young player who is very, very good at basketball, and getting better in real time,
    and experiencing that getting-better himself, and growing for that experience.

    Figuring out how to enjoy watching Waiters, though—and how to watch most
    rookies and young, developing players—is thus like coming to terms with finding
    pleasure in watching “The A-Team.” It's like a lot of things about growing up,
    actually: learning to accept and embrace things that are doofy and dumb, while
    also drawing lines demarcating what is too-doofy and too-dumb. But because he is
    so fun to watch—and, also, because he could be great—Dion Waiters makes
    imperfect basketball perfectly...CONTINUE READING AT THE CLASSICAL




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


    Cavaliers
    M.S. Boyer/J. Valade @PDcavsinsider
    Bob Finnan @BobCavsinsider
    John Krolik @JohnKrolik
    Conrad Kaczmarek @conradkaczmarek
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

    Good luck kid

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

      ^ that's the big story tonight
      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

        Rooting for Ben tonight!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

          If you had told me that 20 games in Ben Hansbrough would have been our backup point guard back in August, I probably would have lit myself on fire. Now Augustin has been so bad that I am actually mildly hopeful for it.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            If you had told me that 20 games in Ben Hansbrough would have been our backup point guard back in August, I probably would have lit myself on fire. Now Augustin has been so bad that I am actually mildly hopeful for it.
            No kidding. I still can't believe (or figure out why) he made the team to begin with. And even I'm like, "eh, what's the worst that can happen?"
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              If you had told me that 20 games in Ben Hansbrough would have been our backup point guard back in August, I probably would have lit myself on fire. Now Augustin has been so bad that I am actually mildly hopeful for it.
              "All right kid, this is your chance. You're going to go out on that floor a backup point guard, but you're going to come back A STAR!" -- "Flo" Vogel
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                I just hope Kyrie doesn't kill the Pacers tonight.

                Please please please, box out. Can't let Varejao or Thompson to beat us to death all night.

                I think the Pacers D proves to be too much tonight and the Pacers win. Could really go either way cause Kyrie is that freaking good.
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I just Ben plays a little adam emmenecker-ish (drives the rock and dishes)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are we gonna throw the Bird cage at Irving? (Larry bird reference)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                      American Splendor is a fantastic movie.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                        The Fieldhouse is empty

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                          PG going to work early.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Heck of a pass from West!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 12/12/2012 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Cavaliers

                              Lance getting a couple of layups.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X