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

Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

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

  • Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

    http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=4911


    Pacer-related comments:


    Matt, Valparaiso, IN: The Pacers have beaten nearly ever team in the West with the exception Kings, and they still get them at home. It seems to me that the Pacers are being overlooked as legit title contenders, why is this ?

    Marc Stein: Because this group still hasn't won a playoff series together and has to prove itself in the playoffs. And also because they're smaller than they were last year and, at least in my book, they're going to miss Brad Miller in the playoffs.

    --

    Adrian (louisville): Hello Marc, You stated that Indiana hasn't won a playoff series together and that is one of the reasons why they are not considered a title contender. Well, neither has Minnesota, but they are considered one of the favorites. Despite there size, they still are very deep and they have Reggie Miller. I think one advantage the Pacers have over teams like the Kings, San Antonio and Minny is that they play defense. I will give you any of those teams and the Pacers will win a 7 game series.

    Marc Stein: I say the same thing about the Wolves. Even with Minny's drastic makeover, they're a team that has to prove itself in the playoffs. The Wolves have looked good in Marc before. But I'll take your bet -- I would take Sacto, SA or Minny over Indy in a seven-game.

    --

    Randy (Indianapolis): The West is a pick-em at this point, but in the East Indiana has got to be the hands down favorite for the finals. Agree?

    Marc Stein: No. There is no hands-down favorite in the East, either. The Nets are the two-time champs and have zero fear of anyone in the East. Detroit is gelling fast and Indy isn't 47-16 by accident. The good news for Indy: Dominating the regular season is going to give them a much easier path to the conference finals. All they have to do is capitalize.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

    Matt, Valparaiso, IN: The Pacers have beaten nearly ever team in the West with the exception Kings, and they still get them at home. It seems to me that the Pacers are being overlooked as legit title contenders, why is this ?

    Marc Stein: Because this group still hasn't won a playoff series together and has to prove itself in the playoffs. And also because they're smaller than they were last year and, at least in my book, they're going to miss Brad Miller in the playoffs.

    Yeah, we missed him last year, too.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

      Matt, Valparaiso, IN: The Pacers have beaten nearly ever team in the West with the exception Kings, and they still get them at home. It seems to me that the Pacers are being overlooked as legit title contenders, why is this ?

      Marc Stein: Because this group still hasn't won a playoff series together and has to prove itself in the playoffs. And also because they're smaller than they were last year and, at least in my book, they're going to miss Brad Miller in the playoffs.

      Yeah, we missed him last year, too.
      It kinda pisses me off when pacer fans want to pretend Brad wasn't a good center and fit in well here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

        Matt, Valparaiso, IN: The Pacers have beaten nearly ever team in the West with the exception Kings, and they still get them at home. It seems to me that the Pacers are being overlooked as legit title contenders, why is this ?

        Marc Stein: Because this group still hasn't won a playoff series together and has to prove itself in the playoffs. And also because they're smaller than they were last year and, at least in my book, they're going to miss Brad Miller in the playoffs.

        Yeah, we missed him last year, too.
        It kinda pisses me off when pacer fans want to pretend Brad wasn't a good center and fit in well here.
        Since the comment is about the playoffs, his final two games of the series: 0 pts, 1 reb and 2 pts. 2 rebs. Series average 8.6 and 5.5.

        He was fine and he fit in well, but he was missed in the playoffs.....
        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

          Matt, Valparaiso, IN: The Pacers have beaten nearly ever team in the West with the exception Kings, and they still get them at home. It seems to me that the Pacers are being overlooked as legit title contenders, why is this ?

          Marc Stein: Because this group still hasn't won a playoff series together and has to prove itself in the playoffs. And also because they're smaller than they were last year and, at least in my book, they're going to miss Brad Miller in the playoffs.

          Yeah, we missed him last year, too.
          It kinda pisses me off when pacer fans want to pretend Brad wasn't a good center and fit in well here.
          Since the comment is about the playoffs, his final two games of the series: 0 pts, 1 reb and 2 pts. 2 rebs. Series average 8.6 and 5.5.

          He was fine and he fit in well, but he was missed in the playoffs.....
          I thought it was determined he reinjured his foot in either game 5 or in game 6?

          BTW... if missing in action in a couple of games of the playoffs is going to be held against a player (who was pretty strong in games 1-4) then perhaps we should look at Al in that series? ...Not to mention Reggie.

          -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: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

            Matt, Valparaiso, IN: The Pacers have beaten nearly ever team in the West with the exception Kings, and they still get them at home. It seems to me that the Pacers are being overlooked as legit title contenders, why is this ?

            Marc Stein: Because this group still hasn't won a playoff series together and has to prove itself in the playoffs. And also because they're smaller than they were last year and, at least in my book, they're going to miss Brad Miller in the playoffs.

            Yeah, we missed him last year, too.
            It kinda pisses me off when pacer fans want to pretend Brad wasn't a good center and fit in well here.
            Since the comment is about the playoffs, his final two games of the series: 0 pts, 1 reb and 2 pts. 2 rebs. Series average 8.6 and 5.5.

            He was fine and he fit in well, but he was missed in the playoffs.....

            Exactly.

            Relax, Hicks. I never said he didn't fit in well here. Or that he wasn't a good center. I just couldn't resist the poke. Stein set it up so well.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

              I am going to say this very carefully because this is still such a hot topic still.

              Pacers do not nor will not miss Brad Miller on the defensive end of the floor. (Exception: maybe a little defensive rebounding wise)

              Pacers certainly do and will continue to miss Brad on the offensive end of the floor in so many ways.

              Can we all agree on both of those statements.

              Watching Brad play one-on-one defense is often not pretty. he was guarding Odom Saturday.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                I am going to say this very carefully because this is still such a hot topic still.

                Pacers do not nor will not miss Brad Miller on the defensive end of the floor. (Exception: maybe a little defensive rebounding wise)

                Pacers certainly do and will continue to miss Brad on the offensive end of the floor in so many ways.

                Can we all agree on both of those statements.

                Watching Brad play one-on-one defense is often not pretty. he was guarding Odom Saturday.
                No, we can not.

                Watching Brad guard a quick finesse big man is not a good thing. Watching Jeff Foster guard strong post players is not any better. Oh, save your breath. I don't give a crap about what he did against Brand in the fourth quarter after Elton had been playing all game long. You wanna shiver in fear? Go back & watch a tape of Jeff playing against Jamal Maglure (sp?) He was made a fool of.

                Stop acting like Brad was just a one side of the court player. It doesn't play out any better than when you kept telling me Brad Miller wasn't an all-star . I'm not saying that Brad is a defensive stopper, but the fact is that he blocks 1.25 shots a game & steals .95 times a game. Jeff gives you .95 steals a game & blocks it .37 times a game.

                Now you & I both agree on one thing. We don't use stats. to judge a player. I have often said that blocks don't equal good defense. But I have watched both players & I still say the same thing. Brad is better defending centers & strong 4's while Jeff is better at the quicker big men.

                BTW, I'm glad to see you admit that Brad's defensive rebounding is missed. Which brings me to another issue. Isn't Jeff Foster's big clame to fame his rebounding? Why would we miss Brad's rebounding if Jeff is here? I already have the answer to that btw.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                  I am going to say this very carefully because this is still such a hot topic.

                  Pacers do not nor will not miss Brad Miller on the defensive end of the floor. (Exception: maybe a little defensive rebounding wise)

                  Pacers certainly do and will continue to miss Brad on the offensive end of the floor in so many ways.

                  Can we all agree on both of those statements.

                  Watching Brad play one-on-one defense is often not pretty. he was guarding Odom Saturday.
                  No, we can not.

                  Watching Brad guard a quick finesse big man is not a good thing. Watching Jeff Foster guard strong post players is not any better. Oh, save your breath. I don't give a crap about what he did against Brand in the fourth quarter after Elton had been playing all game long. You wanna shiver in fear? Go back & watch a tape of Jeff playing against Jamal Maglure (sp?) He was made a fool of.

                  Stop acting like Brad was just a one side of the court player. It doesn't play out any better than when you kept telling me Brad Miller wasn't an all-star . I'm not saying that Brad is a defensive stopper, but the fact is that he blocks 1.25 shots a game & steals .95 times a game. Jeff gives you .95 steals a game & blocks it .37 times a game.

                  Now you & I both agree on one thing. We don't use stats. to judge a player. I have often said that blocks don't equal good defense. But I have watched both players & I still say the same thing. Brad is better defending centers & strong 4's while Jeff is better at the quicker big men.

                  BTW, I'm glad to see you admit that Brad's defensive rebounding is missed. Which brings me to another issue. Isn't Jeff Foster's big clame to fame his rebounding? Why would we miss Brad's rebounding if Jeff is here? I already have the answer to that btw.

                  Sorry, but I have to respond.

                  Peck, I don't think Brand scored on Foster the whole game. I know he didn't in the first 6 minutes of the first quarter when Foster was on him, and then when Foster went to ther bench brad got it going and kept it going until Jeff came back in at the 4 minute mark.

                  In theory Peck, I can agree that brad is a little better against the bigger stronger low post players. The only problem with that is there are so few, and besides Brad is not very good on those few anyway.

                  Bottom line the Pacers are a better defensive team with Jeff Foster than they would be with Brad Miller. (I realize coaching has a lot to do with it, but I am taking that out of the equation for now)

                  Peck we have discussed all this so many times before, I am actually boring myself.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                    I think one advantage the Pacers have over teams like the Kings, San Antonio and Minny is that they play defense. I will give you any of those teams and the Pacers will win a 7 game series.
                    I'm a bit amazed that Stein didn't jump all over this one.

                    I'll give him Sacto and Minny's sort of average on D but the Spurs???

                    Only the best defensive team in the league ...
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                      UB you are missing a couple of things here. And Peck I am suprised you didnt catch it.

                      First of all Jermaine was not a very good defender last year. Tinsley didnt even know what the word meant. You dont think that had something to do with the coach?

                      If you think Brad can not defend then you have clearly not watched much of his career. Well I have and when he was in Charlotte that was his claim to fame. He was a very good defender. He is the one guy in the league who can hold his ground against Shaq.

                      Foster would still be playing the same number of minutes as he is now. So he should be producing the same. If anything I think the person who's numbers would be down had we kept Brad would have been Al.

                      It all comes back to that they chose Al over Brad (in their minds IMO they could have kept both) I think it was a bad choice. I like Al a lot but he is the odd man out because there are two people who are better than him at his positions. Now Bender is coming along and Cro seems to be doing ok.

                      We should have sent Al and Mercer to San Antonio or Utah and Kept Brad then Jermaine would not have to play center. (which we have seen he is a better pf than C)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                        I am going to say this very carefully because this is still such a hot topic.

                        Pacers do not nor will not miss Brad Miller on the defensive end of the floor. (Exception: maybe a little defensive rebounding wise)

                        Pacers certainly do and will continue to miss Brad on the offensive end of the floor in so many ways.

                        Can we all agree on both of those statements.

                        Watching Brad play one-on-one defense is often not pretty. he was guarding Odom Saturday.
                        No, we can not.

                        Watching Brad guard a quick finesse big man is not a good thing. Watching Jeff Foster guard strong post players is not any better. Oh, save your breath. I don't give a crap about what he did against Brand in the fourth quarter after Elton had been playing all game long. You wanna shiver in fear? Go back & watch a tape of Jeff playing against Jamal Maglure (sp?) He was made a fool of.

                        Stop acting like Brad was just a one side of the court player. It doesn't play out any better than when you kept telling me Brad Miller wasn't an all-star . I'm not saying that Brad is a defensive stopper, but the fact is that he blocks 1.25 shots a game & steals .95 times a game. Jeff gives you .95 steals a game & blocks it .37 times a game.

                        Now you & I both agree on one thing. We don't use stats. to judge a player. I have often said that blocks don't equal good defense. But I have watched both players & I still say the same thing. Brad is better defending centers & strong 4's while Jeff is better at the quicker big men.

                        BTW, I'm glad to see you admit that Brad's defensive rebounding is missed. Which brings me to another issue. Isn't Jeff Foster's big clame to fame his rebounding? Why would we miss Brad's rebounding if Jeff is here? I already have the answer to that btw.

                        Sorry, but I have to respond.

                        Peck, I don't think Brand scored on Foster the whole game. I know he didn't in the first 6 minutes of the first quarter when Foster was on him, and then when Foster went to ther bench brad got it going and kept it going until Jeff came back in at the 4 minute mark.

                        In theory Peck, I can agree that brad is a little better against the bigger stronger low post players. The only problem with that is there are so few, and besides Brad is not very good on those few anyway.

                        Bottom line the Pacers are a better defensive team with Jeff Foster than they would be with Brad Miller. (I realize coaching has a lot to do with it, but I am taking that out of the equation for now)

                        Peck we have discussed all this so many times before, I am actually boring myself.
                        I quote the great Ben Sisco "lie to yourself if you must but don't stand between me & the blood wine".

                        So basically in your opinion anything less than 2nd all-defensive team will be an injustice to Jeff. ed:


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                          To quote the great Pacers.com scores and schedules pages:

                          2002-2003 38-25
                          2003-2004 47-16

                          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                            To quote the great Pacers.com scores and schedules pages:

                            2002-2003 38-25
                            2003-2004 47-16

                            Coaching

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Marc Stein chat 3/8: not quite on the Pacers bandwagon

                              To quote the great Pacers.com scores and schedules pages:

                              2002-2003 38-25
                              2003-2004 47-16

                              Coaching

                              Which we couldn't afford had we re-signed Brad.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X