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

Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

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

  • #46
    Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
    One of the comments on that Truehoop post is exclaiming that the Pacers get away with so many fouls.
    Oh yeah, that was always my favorite. Right up there with, "I want to see basketball, not wrestling."

    Get used to that one.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      I have, a lot.
      About any player not named Tyler?

      I hear about Tyler being dirty up here, and I just remind them that Tyler and Noah are the same player with different hair.

      They get all pissed off, think about it, and then admit that I'm basically right. (Because I am.) They both play hard/ intense, and don't back down, but neither of them are really "dirty".


      I don't see the Bad Boy connections. But I don't look fondly at that ****ing Detroit team that was *******izing basketball. I don't have much respect or use for Daly. I think they had four dirty players, although Isiah got more dirty as he lost footspeed after the title run had ended. By 1990, I still thought he was more "tough guy" than dirty punk, but he devolved. I won't even mention the name of the other three ****heads. They were just dirty punks.

      I did respect Dumars. He's a class act. I'm not trying to be unreasonably negative about that blemish against decent basketball.

      I think as Pacers fans its probably our job to fight back against this slimy Bad Boy assocation. That just feels so dirty. Smashmouth, and Blue Collar Gold Swagger seem much better to me. Although I don't really think we're playing much Smashmouth this year. (But hey, as a Jerome Bettis fan, I hold a term like Smashmouth in much higher regard than something sleazy like Bad Boys.)
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        About any player not named Tyler?

        I hear about Tyler being dirty up here, and I just remind them that Tyler and Noah are the same player with different hair.

        They get all pissed off, think about it, and then admit that I'm basically right. (Because I am.) They both play hard/ intense, and don't back down, but neither of them are really "dirty".


        I don't see the Bad Boy connections. But I don't look fondly at that ****ing Detroit team that was *******izing basketball. I don't have much respect or use for Daly. I think they had four dirty players, although Isiah got more dirty as he lost footspeed after the title run had ended. By 1990, I still thought he was more "tough guy" than dirty punk, but he devolved. I won't even mention the name of the other three ****heads. They were just dirty punks.

        I did respect Dumars. He's a class act. I'm not trying to be unreasonably negative about that blemish against decent basketball.

        I think as Pacers fans its probably our job to fight back against this slimy Bad Boy assocation. That just feels so dirty. Smashmouth, and Blue Collar Gold Swagger seem much better to me. Although I don't really think we're playing much Smashmouth this year. (But hey, as a Jerome Bettis fan, I hold a term like Smashmouth in much higher regard than something sleazy like Bad Boys.)
        You're going to have to deal with it, Jay.

        It's always dirty basketball when it's the other guy doing it.

        The most infamous moment was probably when we walked off the court in 1991 instead of congratulating the bulls people still talk about it was the bastion of everything wrong with sportsmanship. Which is hilarious because Larry Bird led the Celtics off the court when we ended their reign in 1988. But since they were the media darling and we were the black hats, that's all anybody will remember.

        Anybody remember LeBron James storming off against Orlando in 2009? That was just LeBron "showing his competitive spirit," though. It couldn't be bad sportsmanship, because it was loveable LeBron, right? LeBron never, ever does anything wrong!

        Danny Granger probably has a dirtier reputation around the NBA than Dwyane Wade, merely because he had the audacity to get confrontational with LeBron.

        Perception is everything.
        Last edited by Kstat; 02-07-2013, 06:45 PM.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

          Who is physical on our team? Maybe West? I completely disagree we are like the Pistons, particularly the bad boys. Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn were physical and dirty players. We don't have any dirty players and we are not that physical. Who is scared of Hibbert? Is Paul George physical? George Hill? David West is somewhat physical...but it's not close and he's not a dirty player like Laimbeer and Mahorn especially.

          This team is more like the Spurs IMO. Also, this small town has Paul George. Don't try to tell me he's not going to be one of the best players in the NBA....

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

            Can't compete without a top 5 offense?
            2012 8th
            2011 8th
            2010 11th
            2009 3rd
            2008 10th
            2007 5th
            2006 7th
            2005 8th
            2004 18th
            2003 7th
            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

              How about defense?
              2012 4th
              2011 8th
              2010 4th
              2009 6th
              2008 1st
              2007 2nd
              2006 9th
              2005 1st
              2004 2nd
              2003 3rd

              2 of the last 10 NBA champions had top 5 offenses.

              7 of the last 10 NBA champs had top 5 defenses.
              "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Roster wise? Of course not.

                As a philosophy? The pacers are trying to emulate what the pistons did. A least that's how Bird built this team.

                I know this way of dong things. I grew up with it. I've spent most of my life with a front row seat for it. This team is unmistakably trending down that path. This is actually bird's second attempt, but I think he realized he needed more stable players to sustain it.
                That is a very astute observation. Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can figure out how much of the Artest era was Bird inspired.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  You're going to have to deal with it, Jay.

                  It's always dirty basketball when it's the other guy doing it.

                  The most infamous moment was probably when we walked off the court in 1991 instead of congratulating the bulls people still talk about it was the bastion of everything wrong with sportsmanship. Which is hilarious because Larry Bird led the Celtics off the court when we ended their reign in 1988. But since they were the media darling and we were the black hats, that's all anybody will remember.

                  Anybody remember LeBron James storming off against Orlando in 2009? That was just LeBron "showing his competitive spirit," though. It couldn't be bad sportsmanship, because it was loveable LeBron, right? LeBron never, ever does anything wrong!

                  Danny Granger probably has a dirtier reputation around the NBA than Dwyane Wade, merely because he had the audacity to get confrontational with LeBron.

                  Perception is everything.

                  None of those things have anything to do with the Pacers. I don't mind if the national/ big market media whines and complains about the Pacers. I hope we give it to them and **** them off. I don't care for either their adoration or criticism. Just don't associate this team with any of that other baggage of somebody else's team. This team has and deserves its own identity. They aren't the "next anything". They're the 2013 Pacers. A group of mentally tough, defensively-committed basketball players focused on a team game with a really solid pick-and-roll scheme to help them finish off close games.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    That is a very astute observation. Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can figure out how much of the Artest era was Bird inspired.

                    None. Most of those players came in under Walsh/ Isiah.

                    If there's a connection, its Isiah.

                    Not Bird.

                    Carlisle's first season was basically winning a bunch of regular season games with Isiah's roster.

                    There's a version of the rumors, you don't have to believe it and certainly it played out differently on the public stage, that Bird was trying to get rid of Artest from the moment he arrived. Remember the Brent Barry rumors were during their first training camp together.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      None of those things have anything to do with the Pacers. I don't mind if the national/ big market media whines and complains about the Pacers. I hope we give it to them and **** them off. I don't care for either their adoration or criticism. Just don't associate this team with any of that other baggage of somebody else's team. This team has and deserves its own identity. They aren't the "next anything". They're the 2013 Pacers. A group of mentally tough, defensively-committed basketball players focused on a team game with a really solid pick-and-roll scheme to help them finish off close games.
                      That's fine, and you don't have to.

                      Obviously since the bad boys thing leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth, the terminology has been changed.

                      Since this is a thread about media perception, I was simply explaining why the perception is what it is, and will continue to be.

                      Are the OKC Thunder treading on the identity of Jordan's Bulls because they're built the same way? Are the Miami Heat treading on the identity of the Celtics?

                      This is all in your head. Nobody is going to detract from the Pacers like that. Nobody is saying the Pacers have to become the Pistons or can't have their own identity, just because they're using a similar formula. They're simply going to treat you like the pistons have been treated for the last several decades,
                      Last edited by Kstat; 02-07-2013, 08:00 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                        I feel like this guy doesn't have much to compare the team to... instead he just reaches for the next closest thing....

                        What he is confused with is that we don't have a superstar and we are still winning games. He doesn't know what to do with that, many people have no clue what real basketball looks like because of the superstars and streetball iso. I mean if you don't have a Lebron/Wade on your team and you are in the top percentile of the league you must be like the bad boys right?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          None. Most of those players came in under Walsh/ Isiah.

                          If there's a connection, its Isiah.

                          Not Bird.

                          Carlisle's first season was basically winning a bunch of regular season games with Isiah's roster.

                          There's a version of the rumors, you don't have to believe it and certainly it played out differently on the public stage, that Bird was trying to get rid of Artest from the moment he arrived. Remember the Brent Barry rumors were during their first training camp together.
                          Bird was in Artest's corner until Artest forced his hand. I don't think anybody here besides you would dispute that.

                          I won't dispute that Zeke started the construction, but Bird continued it.

                          Keep in mind Bird's infamous "milk drinkers" comment.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                            Originally posted by tmhall11 View Post

                            What he is confused with is that we don't have a superstar and we are still winning games. He doesn't know what to do with that, many people have no clue what real basketball looks like because of the superstars and streetball iso. I mean if you don't have a Lebron/Wade on your team and you are in the top percentile of the league you must be like the bad boys right?
                            ....which is exactly what I said would happen before he ever wrote the article. This wasn't hard to predict.

                            The Pacers are winning games without an identifiable media superstar, so they must be doing something "wrong."
                            Last edited by Kstat; 02-07-2013, 07:26 PM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                              KStat's post have just gained me an extremely large amount of respect for Piston fans. They all can't be bad, eh?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Oh man, we are getting our media identity: "The New Bad Boys" [ESPN]

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                This team is more like the Spurs IMO. Also, this small town has Paul George. Don't try to tell me he's not going to be one of the best players in the NBA....
                                Paul George might indeed be one of the NBA's best players eventually, but that will be because of his impact on the defensive end. He's more of a Joe Dumars type (no I am not directly comparing them as players) He scored 15-20 points a night and keeps the other team's best scorer down. It's much easier for fans to accept and digest a team winning games when they're led by a dominant big guy (Spurs), or a guy scoring 30 points a game. (Thunder). That's what NBA fans and the NBA media are comfortable with.

                                Also FYI, David West has had the dirty player label since his episode with Dirk in the playoffs 5-6 years ago.
                                Last edited by Kstat; 02-07-2013, 07:27 PM.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X