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

12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

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

  • 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    I'VE HAD IT WITH
    THESE MOTHERBUCKING
    DEER ON THIS
    MOTHERBUCKING PLANE!


    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 8:00 PM ET
    Where: BMO Harris Bradley Center, Milwaukee, WI
    Officials: D. Stafford, P. Fraher, O. Poole

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Milwaukee Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports Wisconsin
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WTMJ 620 AM
    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


    13-11
    Away: 6-8
    East: 7-5
    12-10
    Home: 6-5
    East: 10-5
    Dec 19
    Dec 21
    Dec 22
    Dec 26
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    8:00pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    GREEN
    HILL
    SANDERS
    MBAH A MOUTE
    DANIELS
    ELLIS
    JENNINGS


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    Roy Hibbert - LoneGroinger33 territory (probable)
    Lance Stephenson - right ankle sprain (doubtful)


    BUCKS
    Mike Dunleavy - bruised left knee (probable)
    Tobias Harris - right elbow laceration (out)
    Joel Przybilla - world's least satisfying ball-throwing suspension (suspended)
    Beno Udrih - right ankle sprain (out)



    Steve von Horn: Milwaukee Bucks Lineup Pyramids - Corner 3s, please

    I understand why Frank Vogel likes this offensive action. It is tough to cover, it can create
    open layups and it, sort of, allows you to get away with moving screens easily. What I’m
    talking about is a staple in the Pacers half-court sets: an action where a perimeter player
    feeds the post then rushes directly towards the recipient to cut off his shoulder towards
    the hoop.

    Let's talk corner threes. For the season, the 2012-13 Milwaukee Bucks have scored 22.9
    percent of their total points from mid-range jumpers - mid-range being defined as the
    area inside the three-point line and outside the paint. Only two of the top-15 four-man
    lineup combinations for Milwaukee this year have meaningfully deviated from that trend
    by replacing mid-range production with three-point production (which is a terrific change
    to make). In a stunning upset, both of those quartets feature Marquis Daniels playing
    alongside Brandon Jennings and Monta Ellis.

    When Larry Sanders joins Daniels, Ellis and Jennings, the mid-range allocation drops to
    14.9% and the percentage of points derived from threes jumps to 22.3% (from a normal
    team average of 17.9%). When Ekpe Udoh steps in for Sanders beside that trio, mid-
    range allocation falls to 15.1% and three-point contributions rise to 20.9% of total points
    scored.

    How are those two lineup combinations so successful at transforming sub-optimal mid-
    range shots into three-point attempts? They shoot 40.4% and 44.4 percent from beyond
    the arc, respectively. Is that sustainable? Probably not. Marquis Daniels has played
    through nine NBA season and he's never shot better than 30.6% from three in any single
    campaign. His career 3PT% sits at 23.5, which is a ghastly figure for any perimeter
    player. However, *Starquis* has converted on 9-of-24 of attempts this season (37.5%),
    and that potency has helped space the offense and fuel an important change in how the
    offense gets points.

    Let's think back to the summer for a second. I spent the entire month of July (Vol. 1)
    articulating my argument (Vol. 2) that the Bucks desperately needed to sign a legitimate
    shooter who could hit threes from the corners (Vol. 3) in order to improve the geometry
    and spacing in the offense.

    I liked Marco Belinelli as a reasonable option in free agency, but he wound up with the
    Bulls on a two-year, $3.8 million deal (side note: take a look a Belinelli's production since
    he moved into the starting lineup
    for Chicago). The Bucks landed Daniels in a move made
    later during the off-season.

    Okay, that's water under the bridge at this point. Sure the Bucks have a below-average
    offense and they rank 28th in 3PT% and 21st in corner 3PT%. And yes, Belinelli is
    shooting 41.3% from three-point range on the year, but it's WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE
    I SAY.

    Marquis Daniels has actually helped soften the blow...for now. Before I explain, here's
    a quick distillation of what I harped on over the summer:
    The Bucks badly need a wing player to space the floor on offense and
    hit corner threes, because it's a real stretch to think Tobias Harris can
    step in and keep the defense honest. If Harris is forced into the starting
    lineup, he could struggle to produce [as a floor spacer in the corner].
    Another wing shooter would allow Harris to slide into a hybrid offensive
    role in specialized second-unit combinations.

    ...Unless the Bucks add someone else to hit corner threes (like Delfino)
    or a true pick-and-pop option...things could become very difficult for
    Jennings and Ellis as driving lanes are cut off by sagging defenders in
    non-Dunleavy lineups.

    Guess where Daniels has excelled from along the arc so far in 2012...that's right, the
    corners. He's 7-for-13 in the corners of the court, and only 2-for-11 above the break on
    triples. Maybe Marquis Daniels suddenly became a very solid corner three-point shooter.
    I have no idea why that would be true only in his 10th year, and it doesn't make enough
    sense to advance as a reasonable theory, but the truth is that he found his stroke for
    long enough to bridge the gap until Dunleavy returns. That doesn't mean the problems
    are solved for Milwaukee on offense, but it did help the team stack a few wins in the
    interim. It's a nice storyline for the moment being, but it would be an unbelievable
    storyline if it continued.

    Here's a look at Daniels' impact on those particular units noted above:



    Now here's your bi-weekly PER update:

    Observations

    *In just short of a month's time, Brandon Jennings' PER has fallen from 22.4 to 16.7.
    That's an alarming step down for a guard who should be raising his level of play heading
    into restricted free agency. It makes me feel a bit nervous about the trade chatter
    surrounding BJ, because I'm not fond of selling low on anybody. The name of the game
    is supposed to be buy low, sell high. I'd hate for the Bucks to take pennies on the dollar
    when they still have the right to match any offer he receives during the off-season --
    which could turn into a blessing if someone lowballs him and he signs the offer sheet.
    There are some systemic issues that crop up with Jennings, and it's impossible for the
    franchise to go back from the 35+ MPG and starting point guard thing now, but Ellis still
    feels like the guy who should move when (yes, I said when) they break up this back
    court combo. That's at least how I feel at the moment.

    *Doron Lamb's NBA career is going just how everyone expected: he has flashed some
    potential as a lock-down perimeter defender and he can't hit the broad side of a barn
    with his outside shots. Wait.....WHAT? Lamb suffered through an 0-for-18 stretch over
    the past week that made even the most hopeful fans cringe, so it's natural that his PER
    dropped even further into the disaster zone. He took so long to hit his first NBA three
    that I had joked my celebratory doves passed away long before he gave me a reason
    to release them, but we've shifted to a point where this issue can't be joked about any
    longer. Again, he's very young and his defensive prowess has been notable, but Lamb
    is clearly not ready for the NBA right now.

    *Ersan Ilyasova spent the first part of the season digging an incredible hole -- he
    owned a 5.9 PER on Nov. 19 -- but since that time he's managed to climb up to a
    respectable perch. His marks are still below average, and he's hardly worth the $7.9
    million the Bucks are paying him this season, but things are improving. He's
    effectively lowered the standard we hold him to, which is a tragedy in its own right.

    (click to enlarge)

    Take a look at the changes from Vol. 2

    (click to enlarge)

    Now let's get to the updated lineup pyramids (note the Daniels/Jennings/Ellis success
    and then refer to my content above if you skipped over those paragraphs).

    In case this is your first time reading the series, I'm breaking down the best and
    worst trends among different lineup grouping for the Bucks. When I speak of a four-
    man lineup, it means those four players are always in the five-man group, and the
    final slot could be filled by anyone else on the roster (and so forth down the line to
    two-man groups). Here is what else you need to know:
    The sample sizes for lineup combinations are small, so only the most-
    used groupings are considered, but the information provided below
    serves to explain what has actually happened so far this year. You
    can use these numbers in the following manner: When [insert player
    grouping here] were on the floor, the Bucks outscored (or were
    outscored by) opponents by a margin of [insert pts / 100 poss #].

    Once again, here are the parameters I used:
    • Best / Worst of the top-six lineups (by min/gm) for four- and five-man
      lineups are listed.
    • Best / Worst of the top-10 lineups (by min/gm) for three- and two-man
      lineups, as well as the individual category are also listed.


    Best Lineup Observations

    *My best observation is posted at the outset of the article. Be sure to watch the video to
    drive the point home.

    *Marquis Daniels, Ekpe Udoh and Larry Sanders are the only three men who have not ssen
    their defensive rating plummet when paired with Brandon Jennings and Monta Ellis. Those
    three are among the best defenders the Bucks can put on the floor. If Daniels can't keep
    up the offensive output, it will be interesting to see how effective this unit will be going
    forward. The good news is that they've been excellent so far this season over 40 minutes
    of action.

    *If you haven't missed Beno Udrih, you haven't been watching Bucks games while he's
    been out with an ankle injury.



    Here's a look at the trends that have developed over the first three installments in the
    series (click to enlarge).



    Worst Lineup Observations

    *The more Tobias Harris has played, the worse he's made things. Take a close look at
    the image where I've combined all three volumes of the worst pyramids into a single
    graphic. Harris only played 23 minutes additional minutes since Vol. 2 on Dec. 2, but
    over that time he managed to drop even further from -7.7 pts / 100 poss to -9.6 pts /
    100 poss. As it's been from the beginning, defense is the primary issue. All signs point
    to the fact that he's not going to be a small forward in the future. I still think he could
    flourish...CONTINUE READING AT BREWHOOP




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


    Bucks
    Charles F. Gardner @cf_gardner
    Jeremy Schmidt @Bucksketball
    K L Chouinard @AnaheimAmigos
    Frank Madden @brewhoop
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 12-18-2012, 05:11 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    Permanent handle change to LoneGroinger33?
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

      I want REVENGE

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

        we should destroy them inside. anything less than that would be unacceptable.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

          Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
          Permanent handle change to LoneGroinger33?
          Marvelous idea.

          We, as a community of amateurs, are best-served by having an expert like LoneGroinger33 lead the intercourse regarding the mystery (and perhaps magic) of groins. I'm sure he could type with one hand the number of things he's ever not known about that particular area - especially when Pacer-specific.

          He's a tough nut to bust, no doubt, and certainly has several bones of contention (mostly with you, Aesop)... but it is my hope that we can coax him into taking a leadership role (no matter what groin-teasing or prodding might be required to penetrate his rigid exterior) and that we can resolve this without it erupting into a sticky mess.

          What say you, LG33?
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

            We got the size advantage in the post. Green especially. Get him the ball and let's get him out of this season long slump .

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

              A win tonight could very well mean Indiana secures the #4 spot in the East.

              An Indiana victory, plus Brooklyn (vs. Utah) and Chicago (vs. Boston) losses would put our little clump of similar record teams at

              Indiana 14-11
              Chicago 13-11
              Brooklyn 13-11
              Boston 13-11
              Milwaukee 12-11

              Not a bad place to be, when one considers Indiana will have played 15 road games and is missing their best player, who will return eventually vs. 10, 10 11 and 12 road games played by the opposing teams.

              If Indiana wins, and Atlanta loses somehow vs. Washington then Indiana would only be 1.5 games out of 3rd place, with Atlanta only having played 9 road games thus far (14-8 vs. 14-11).
              Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                We got the size advantage in the post. Green especially. Get him the ball and let's get him out of this season long slump .
                It depends. They can always put Luc Richard Mbah a Moute on him. He's a very versatile defender that can defend the 2,3 and 4. If they do, they have no one on West though. Or they could slide Sanders there but then they would have no one on Hibbert. And there's always PG as well

                We can start posting their whole team, actually. Hill can post up both of their starting guards.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                  Lance is playing! Via Pacers twitter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                    Wow, that place is E-M-P-T-Y.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                      Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                      Wow, that place is E-M-P-T-Y.
                      So it this place.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                        Wow, that was like 3 different flops on 1 play for Jennings.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                          Nice drive
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                            IS there butter on the damn ball?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 12/18/2012 Game Thread #25: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                              Did somebody grease the ball or something? I've never seen a 4-minute stretch where so many different guys from both teams lost control of the ball.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X