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

Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

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

  • Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    ....or what would you do differently?

    #1
    I'd have to say my complaint with the Pacers would be they never take an immediate shot at improving the team unless there is no downside ((IE: Dale Davis at or near vet minimum $$ prorated to final 1/3rd of the season). ...Or things had gotten so bad there was no reason not to do something or they downright HAD to do something (Chicago trade)).

    IOW, dollars are played close to the vest in that regard. That part could be understandable BUT dollars are not played close to the vest when it comes to overpaying our own for the future to the point that it handcuffs us into having zero flexibility to improve our immediate lot. Therefore, I don't see money as the overriding issue. There's money there, it's just questionable to me how it is allocated.

    Some could argue Bender was a 'championship' gamble. IMHO, Bender was another move for the future. He would never help the existing (at the time) team to a championship. He could only hurt them because he offered nothing that they needed while in their immediate window. And he came at a price, not just a blown draft pick.

    Our major moves and signings always seem to be for benefits several years down the road, not the immediate future. IMHO, that is why we end up with unbalanced rosters because the future doesn't always work out as planned.

    IOW... We're a team that is always built for "next year". Is it any wonder we are always saying "Wait'll next year!"?

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

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    I couldn't agree more.

    I love this franchise, I think we are one of the best franchises in the NBA, but I am sick of the "wait till next year" mentality. We are always building for the future. But you know what's funny? The future never comes, it's always "the future"

    For once I'd like to lay everything on the line, and make a move that would impact a current season, and give us a great shot to win a championship.

    I've always thought that the mentality has been to build a team that will always just be competitive.

    I want an NBA championship more than anything for this franchise. That's the only thing that matters in the NBA. That's how your judged by other franchises. 61 wins is nice for the Pacers, but in all honesty, no one gave a damn around the NBA that we won 61 games last year. There is nothing more overhyped than regular season victories. What people pay attention to is who won the championship, not who won the most games.

    The mentality of Indianapolis professional sports is "wait till next year"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

      Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
      I couldn't agree more.

      I love this franchise, I think we are one of the best franchises in the NBA, but I am sick of the "wait till next year" mentality. We are always building for the future. But you know what's funny? The future never comes, it's always "the future"

      For once I'd like to lay everything on the line, and make a move that would impact a current season, and give us a great shot to win a championship.

      I've always thought that the mentality has been to build a team that will always just be competitive.

      I want an NBA championship more than anything for this franchise. That's the only thing that matters in the NBA. That's how your judged by other franchises. 61 wins is nice for the Pacers, but in all honesty, no one gave a damn around the NBA that we won 61 games last year. There is nothing more overhyped than regular season victories. What people pay attention to is who won the championship, not who won the most games.

      The mentality of Indianapolis professional sports is "wait till next year"

      I totally agree. We always have good teams, but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters. Indianapolis teams always seem destined for the Eastern Conference Finals/AFC Championship, but never any further.
      Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

        Originally posted by TruWarier
        but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters.
        I have a real problem with statements like that. But instead of listing all the games in the playoffs that the Pacers did play very well, by that I mean they played very well in games "when it matters". I won't make such a boring list. Just let me say every game in the playoffs "matter".

        Seems to me you are suggesting the games "only matter when they lose"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

          Originally posted by TruWarier
          I totally agree. We always have good teams, but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters. Indianapolis teams always seem destined for the Eastern Conference Finals/AFC Championship, but never any further.
          Not to derail my own thread... but if the Colts are a team of destiny for the AFC Championship somebody better tell 'destiny'. I can count two times making it in the 20 years or so that they've been here

          And the times they didn't make it, they haven't even been close whether that is not even in the playoffs or getting manhandled the previous round to the championship.

          But I digress....

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

          ------

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

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

            I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

            I agree with you guys. Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

            I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results.

            (I won't get into the minutae of what's occurred in the past, but it seems we get ourselves in the mix with trade talks, so people can say, hey, they're trying to do something, but ulimately the trigger is never pulled because our players, who the other team wants, have too much "potential". The first time that happened in the modern era that I remember was with Barkley around 96? 97? He openly admired the Pacers for years-something which held over to his broadcasting days- and I kept thinking, this is a deal that could mean something, but we didn't want to give up anything that constituted a risk, to get him. I WILL say, I think we made a ballsy move when we picked up Dampier. That is about the only time I can think we made a "win-now" move.)

            I think part of the problem is that you can't build a team assuming a group of players will all mature at the same time, as you guys said, as if the rest of the league will be in stasis. You USED to be able to do that. Back in the dynasty Lakers/Celts days.

            I think the models of Miami and Minnesota show the yin (good) and yang (bad) of the current model of getting a dominant player, then surrounding him with complementary guys.

            But I'm getting off the subject a bit.

            I think this team is always built for the future, too. It's great from a business sense. Always good enough to put fans in the seats, not controversial enough to make people turn away from the team, but as a fan, it gets old.
            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

              Originally posted by Bball
              Not to derail my own thread... but if the Colts are a team of destiny for the AFC Championship somebody better tell 'destiny'. I can count two times making it in the 20 years or so that they've been here

              And the times they didn't make it, they haven't even been close whether that is not even in the playoffs or getting manhandled the previous round to the championship.

              But I digress....

              -Bball
              True, they have only reached 2 times. I guess I should just say, one win and out.

              Yes, every playoff game does matter. But it seems like in the Eastern Conference Finals, something always happens to the Pacers where they lose. Injuries, bad refs, the list can go on. It seems like the team that is really competing with us throughout the season, always makes the big move to put them over the top, while we stay put.
              Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.
                I will be 21 this May. I agree with PacerFanAdam, who is actually 2+ years younger than me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                  Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                  I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

                  I agree with you guys. Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

                  I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results.

                  (I won't get into the minutae of what's occurred in the past, but it seems we get ourselves in the mix with trade talks, so people can say, hey, they're trying to do something, but ulimately the trigger is never pulled because our players, who the other team wants, have too much "potential". The first time that happened in the modern era that I remember was with Barkley around 96? 97? He openly admired the Pacers for years-something which held over to his broadcasting days- and I kept thinking, this is a deal that could mean something, but we didn't want to give up anything that constituted a risk, to get him. I WILL say, I think we made a ballsy move when we picked up Dampier. That is about the only time I can think we made a "win-now" move.)

                  I think part of the problem is that you can't build a team assuming a group of players will all mature at the same time, as you guys said, as if the rest of the league will be in stasis. You USED to be able to do that. Back in the dynasty Lakers/Celts days.

                  I think the models of Miami and Minnesota show the yin (good) and yang (bad) of the current model of getting a dominant player, then surrounding him with complementary guys.

                  But I'm getting off the subject a bit.

                  I think this team is always built for the future, too. It's great from a business sense. Always good enough to put fans in the seats, not controversial enough to make people turn away from the team, but as a fan, it gets old.
                  I'm quoting this post because I think it deserves to be quoted.

                  Nice job, Skaut.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    I have a real problem with statements like that. But instead of listing all the games in the playoffs that the Pacers did play very well, by that I mean they played very well in games "when it matters". I won't make such a boring list. Just let me say every game in the playoffs "matter".

                    Seems to me you are suggesting the games "only matter when they lose"


                    Yes, every game in the playoffs "matters", but some games have alot more importance than others.

                    Winning games early in playoff series' is one thing, winning them when it's do or die is totally another.

                    Let's just take the 2002 WCF's between the Lakers and the Kings. The Kings were able to take leads in that series, but when it was literally do or die in game 7, it was the Lakers that showed up. Game 7 had far more importance than any of the games the Kings won.

                    I'll always say that the Pacers should have had 1 NBA championship from 1994-1999. In 2000, the Pacers reached their potential, and were just beat by a better, more powerful team.

                    That's why I've always had a problem with Reggie being labled as "the greatest clutch performer of all time." I don't think clutch is just hitting a couple of buzzer shots, Clutch is willing your team to victory, putting everything on the line in a do or die game. Jordan, Bird and Johnson, those are the best clutch performers of all time, they willed their teams to championships. I've just always felt that most of Reggie's "big moments" were in early games in playoff series.

                    I hate to knock Reggie, but him and those Pacers teams always seemed to have their best games early in playoff series from 1994-1999. Again, I'll state that in the year 2000, Reggie and the Pacers did everything they could, but were simply beat by a more powerful team. And of course in 1996, Reggie was injured for the first 4 games against Atlanta, then played his *** off in game 5 against the Hawks, but unfortunately, we fell short. And in 2002, Reggie went above and beyond in game 5 against NJ, but that isn't one of the window years I am referring to.

                    OK, what are 3 of the biggest Pacers playoff moments in franchise history. I'm not saying THE 3 biggest moments, just 3 of the biggest.

                    One is the miracle Rik Smits shot against the Magic in game 4 of the 1995 ECF's. Huge win, but did it help the Pacers win the series? No, they were smoked in game 7.

                    Next is Reggie's 25 fourth quarter points in game 5 of the 1994 ECF's. Huge moment, but it didn't win the series for us. Him and the Pacers had a chance to shut the Knicks out at MSA in game 6, and then lost game 7 in NY. You have to back a performance like that in game 5 with a win to close out the series, and the Pacers didn't

                    Then there is the shot against Chicago. Again, a great moment, but when everything was on the line in game 7, it was Jordan and the Bulls that willed the victory.

                    I'll always be bitter that we didnt get one championship out of 1994, 1995, 1998, or 1999. We faded in those years when everything was on the line. The loss to NY in 1999 was embarassing. Thankfully Reggie redeemed himself from an embarassing 8 point performance in game 6 of 1999 with a 34 pt performance in game 6 of 00.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                      You know the reason why the Pacers have never won the NBA championship. It is not because they haven't been able to win the games that "matter"

                      They have not won it all because I don't believe there was an individual season when they were the best team for that given year. Simple as that and we all know the best team wins in the NBA 99% of the time

                      2004 - Pistons were better.
                      2000 - Lakers were better
                      1999 - Spurs were better. The Knicks likely weren't better than the Pacers, but the Spurs were
                      1998 - Bulls were better, more experienced
                      1995 - Magic beat the Pacers, but I think the Rockets were better than the Pacers.
                      1994 - First time the pacers have ever won an NBA playoff series. They weren't quite ready yet

                      I cannot honestly suggest that in any of these seasons I metnioned that they were better than the team that won the championship. In fact I don't think they were at all.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        You know the reason why the Pacers have never won the NBA championship. It is not because they haven't been able to win the games that "matter"

                        They have not won it all because I don't believe there was an individual season when they were the best team for that given year. Simple as that and we all know the best team wins in the NBA 99% of the time

                        2004 - Pistons were better.
                        2000 - Lakers were better
                        1999 - Spurs were better. The Knicks likely weren't better than the Pacers, but the Spurs were
                        1998 - Bulls were better, more experienced
                        1995 - Magic beat the Pacers, but I think the Rockets were better than the Pacers.
                        1994 - First time the pacers have ever won an NBA playoff series. They weren't quite ready yet

                        I cannot honestly suggest that in any of these seasons I metnioned that they were better than the team that won the championship. In fact I don't think they were at all.
                        You know, outside of 2000, the Pacers had a great chance to win those 5 other series. We could go round and round over who the better team was in each of those series, but the fact is, the Pacers had their chances to win all of those series, but didn't deliver.

                        When you're up 3-2 on a team, and have 2 chances to put them out, like the Pacers did with the Knicks in 1994, and you don't do it........you blew it, it's that simple. You had your chances to win and didn't do it.

                        We should have been able to find out if the Rockets were better in 1995. We would have given them a hell of a series. Don't forget we beat the Rockets in Houston in 1993-1994, and 1994-1995. You've made the point of "experience" playing a factor in the Pacers losing in 1994 and 1998. Well who had the experience in 1995, the Pacers or the Magic? Wasn't it the Pacers that had been to an ECF's before? Wasn't it the Pacers who had played in a game 7 before? The Magic had never won a playoff series before 1995.

                        You bring "experience" up in dealing with the Pacers-Bulls. Experience is overrated. Who had the experience in the NBA finals last year, the Pistons or the Lakers? The Lakers had won 3 NBA championships, that PIstons team had never seen the finals before. Again, the fact remains that the Pacers had their chances to win that series in 1998 and didn't. Anytime teams go to a 7th game, it's hard to say one team is that much better than the other.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                          Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                          I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

                          I agree with you guys. Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

                          I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results.
                          Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

                          Regards,

                          Mourning
                          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                            So far I find myself agreeing with both PacerfanAdam and Uncle Buck in varying degrees in their ongoing debate. I think it is time to make a food run, think about it, and get off the fence.

                            It's an interesting debate tho.

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

                            ------

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

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

                              Originally posted by Mourning
                              Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

                              Regards,

                              Mourning
                              If you think back, the SJax deal was still a look to the future. It was a deal for a new 6th man - a guy who could be Reggie's successor "next year or the year after."

                              It wasn't a bold improvement - it was just one more step in a long line of lateral moves. It wasn't a mistake - DW is guilty of very few of those - but it wasn't a bold move to put us over the top either.
                              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X