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

1999/2000 Finals

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

  • #61
    Re: 1999/2000 Finals

    The 2001 Lakers had one of the most impressive playoff runs ever. The swept Portland, the Kings and the Spurs. I love the Pacers. I loved those 98-00 teams. I love Dick Harter, but I can't say if somehow we could have brought that team back they would have fared better.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: 1999/2000 Finals

      IMO, the 2000 Pacers team would have defeated the 2004 team by virtue of experience alone. The only player who legitimately stopped them was Shaq. I don't think he scored less than 20 pts in any game during that 2000 Finals series. Remove him from the equation and the Pacers win easily.

      Rik and D2 tried, but even their combined efforts weren't good enough to stop Shaq.
      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
      The 2001 Lakers had one of the most impressive playoff runs ever. The swept Portland, the Kings and the Spurs. I love the Pacers. I loved those 98-00 teams. I love Dick Harter, but I can't say if somehow we could have brought that team back they would have fared better.
      I'm confinced that had the 2000 Pacers team returned for 2001 including Bird and his coaching staff, they would have returned to the NBA Finals again that year. No doubt about it.
      Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-11-2007, 11:10 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: 1999/2000 Finals

        Originally posted by Mal View Post
        Cleveland doesn't stand a chance against the Pistons. They play the games for a reason. At least we would have BEEN THERE to find out!
        You're preaching to the wrong choir with that comparison.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: 1999/2000 Finals

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          Yeah, I wrote that before reading on to be reminded of the unlikelihood of keeping the team together.

          Still, I hate the assumption people make that even if the same team came back, we stood no chance. Bull****.
          I agree. Honestly I think just keeping Jax might have been enough, along with NOT HIRING ZEKE.

          Hate Rick all you want, tell me the players didn't want him, but his first year just a few years later took a more volitile mix of players to the ECF and 61 wins (home court throughout).

          Rick returns, someone calms Reggie and whoever else didn't want him, Jax runs point instead of Best, and you've got a real shot at the Finals at least. And regarding Rik, didn't he go on to play a little ball in Europe and toy briefly with a return at one point? I could maybe see him staying another year if Jax and Larry/Rick stayed.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: 1999/2000 Finals

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Jax runs point instead of Rose
            Fixed. Remember, that was one of his conditions of re-signing. The argument can certainly be made that Jalen would not have come back if Jax and Rick were here. And before somebody asks, I seem to remember that Detroit was willing to pay him max too.

            It took us 5 tries to get past the ECF, and the one time we did was after almost losing in the first round. I don't see how anyone can think we would have made it again by default.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: 1999/2000 Finals

              Originally posted by gilpdawg View Post
              I just watched that game for the first time today. During that finals, I had just started a new job on second shift, so I missed the whole damn series. I never realized we were so close to winning that series.
              That's what I was saying. I saw that series, but a couple games I was side tracked with g/f and hosting issues, so I would stray from time to time trying to keep her happy and make sure friends and family were enjoying themselves.

              I knew the Lakers were suppose to and did win that series, but when I sat here and watched that Finals episode on ESPN that went game by game with all the key moments.

              When you can just sit back and relive what happened, and you hear some of the commentary, and behind the scenes stuff, it personally hit me like we could've and I honestly feel should've won that series.

              Both teams had there stars, and really good role players, with a good coaching system. It just came down to making shots, and getting stops.



              As for the Lakers not showing in Game 5, that's not completely true. That Lakers team was known for starting off games slow (As seen in Game 7 vs. Portland), and the Pacers came out firing to just take the life out of them.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                Fixed. Remember, that was one of his conditions of re-signing. The argument can certainly be made that Jalen would not have come back if Jax and Rick were here. And before somebody asks, I seem to remember that Detroit was willing to pay him max too.

                It took us 5 tries to get past the ECF, and the one time we did was after almost losing in the first round. I don't see how anyone can think we would have made it again by default.
                Because experience counts for a lot. So does chemistry. The experience of getting past the ECF's and into the Finals, even in a losing cause, would've been invaluable. Of course it wouldn't have been a given that we got back BUT BUT BUT BUT you don't pull the plug when the team is still rising or maintaining their standing.... you wait until you actually see a decline at least.

                You can tweak it.... But you don't 'rebuild on the fly' to try and build a contender when you are already a contender. We should've milked that team, and Reggie and MJax, until their tanks were about dry or a banner was hanging in Conseco. The sign of decline should not have been a fluke loss to NYKs in '99 or a first ever finals appearance in 2000.

                I would much rather have accepted that and a fade into memory than some of the crap we've dealt with since.

                And we never should've traded AD for Bender.
                I'm not say that we couldn't trade AD but it should've been for a player we could use while in our championship window and while in a 'win now' mode. Bender was an expensive mistake and a bust. :

                -Bball
                Last edited by Bball; 06-12-2007, 10:43 PM.
                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


                • #68
                  Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Because experience counts for a lot. So does chemistry.
                  Exactly. I know you and others say that we should have kept AD, but we got rid of him because he felt he should have been starting, and from his obvious disinterest in the '99 ECF, it was affecting his play. Dale was ****ed that his agent screwed him. He probably didn't appreciate Cro getting the big contract, and him being a fan favorite after one good series couldn't have helped. Jalen was beginning to cause trouble in the locker room, as Larry alluded to in his book, and if he came back with a sense of entitlement from not only his max contract but a promise to let him run point, you think Jax would have been okay with that? And we all know unhappy Jax=unhappy Reggie.

                  Donnie felt there were too many obstacles in trying to keep the status quo, so he decided to rebuild around Jalen, Cro, and JO. Did it work? Hell no. But that doesn't mean everything would have worked perfectly if he hadn't, and yes, a lot of dominos would have to fall just right for us to make it back.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                    I think we milked Jackson for all he was worth. There were debates about whether he or Best should start here. Toronto signed him for however many years then traded him that same season. The Knicks had a horrible year in 2001/02. He then went to Utah when he did cause chemistry problems and then went to Houston.

                    That's 4 teams in 4 years.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                      i simply don't feel like the 2000 team was as good as the lakers were that year and for me, the finals were all i could really hope for and i was thrilled they finally got there.
                      rik was in serious decline. 98 was his last healthy year. after that season he had his foot surgery and was never the same. the last 2 seasons, he was significantly slower (and he was never really fast to begin with) but because of his height, he was still able to contribute- just not like he used to. now lets remember that what made those teams ( all those ecf teams and the finals team) so tough was the fact rik gave us a consistent post scorer. with him retired, who is able to fill that void?. reggie can launch the 3's all he wants and jackson can play the point but, without a center who can get you some interior scoring- you are not going to the finals again. if the defense doesn't have to worry about your interior they will simply apply their focus on the middle and perimeter and those guys can't get it done by themselves or even if jalen was still around. he was good but, not a post threat.

                      we had rik as our inside threat and he was pretty much it. if we kept dale around, he couldn't give the offense needed at the 4 since he was never a scorer and we would need a real center since rik was gone. so, once more- without the inside scoring- that team was not going back to the finals. if you don't have at least one big guy at the 4-5 spots who is at least a decent, reliable scorer, you are not going to do it unless you have a team that had guys like jordan AND pippen on it.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Show of hands... anybody besides BBall think we should have tried to keep the 2000 team together for longer?

                        That team was done. End of story. If we'd have kept them together, we'd have won more regular season games, but that's it. And we all know that's what Bball lives for.
                        Man I must really be slipping to have fallen off of your radar.

                        You know my thoughts on this so, no not the end of story no matter how many times you want to say it.

                        That team would have gone right back to the finals the very next year and you'll never convince me otherwise. Just like I will never convince you otherwise.


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

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Man I must really be slipping to have fallen off of your radar.

                          You know my thoughts on this so, no not the end of story no matter how many times you want to say it.

                          That team would have gone right back to the finals the very next year and you'll never convince me otherwise. Just like I will never convince you otherwise.
                          What team? Even without the JO-for-DD trade, please tell me the roster that you think would have reached the Finals (or even the ECFs).
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Man I must really be slipping to have fallen off of your radar.

                            You know my thoughts on this so, no not the end of story no matter how many times you want to say it.

                            That team would have gone right back to the finals the very next year and you'll never convince me otherwise. Just like I will never convince you otherwise.
                            If that exact same team was to be together the next season, then yes they would have had a shot at the finals.....but there lies your problem.

                            It was impossible to keep that team together.

                            I agree that if that exact team would have been together the next season, that it would have had a great shot to contend with the finals...but I am 99% certain that it would have been impossible to keep the team together after 2000, there was just no way that we could keep that collection of players.

                            Smits was done. People can knock Smits if they want to, but watch that game 4 OT. He was in the zone. That team needed his presence.

                            Ever wonder why Toronto signed Jackson to that long deal but then shipped him out that February to New York? Or why New York only kept him one season after that? Or why Utah just kept him for a year? He had nothing left. That was all to obvious in his final season here, as there was the constant Best or Jackson debate.

                            Of course if Jackson comes back, Rose probably doesn't want to stay. Remember, he wanted to be the PG, as Kegboy stated.

                            I believe that Rose was the single most important factor into the 2000 finals run. His emergence into a prime offensive threat was something that the Pacers had never had: A guy other than Reggie who could consistantly be counted on for 20 points a game (averaged 20.8 in the 2000 playoffs). Smits' was on fire in 1995, but unfortunately he had to go up against a young Shaq after dominating Patrick Ewing.

                            I 100% believe that the reason the Pacers were never able to get over the hump prior to 2000 is because there was no one else other than Reggie who could shoulder the scoring load on a consistant basis. Shaq had Kobe, Jordan had Pippen. Who did Reggie have in 1998 or 1999 to shoulder the scoring load? Nobody. I believe that Reggie was always out of gas by the end of the ECF's in prior years to 2000 because he was simply out of gas. Too much of the scoring burden fell on him. If Rose isn't a starter in 2000, that team gets bounced in teh first round. I believe that.

                            All of the sudden you have Rose as a starter in a 2000 and he is averaging 20 a game in the playoffs. Coincidentally what also happens? Reggie has his best postseason ever. Reggie is able to save his best for last in series, as he goes off for 41 against Milwaukee, and 34 to close out New York. If Rose isn't there to give Reggie scoring relief throughout series, I don't think he has enough gas to close that series out in New York in game 6.

                            But hey, no one ever gives Rose credit in cyber Pacerland. He is constantly villified. No Rose, No finals. Finally having someone other than Reg who could give us 20 took us from an ECF team to a finals team.

                            Wasn't there trouble with Dale Davis after 2000? Wasn't he being a P*ick or something about his contract?

                            Maybe that team could have made the finals again in 2001. But let's not forget that the Bucks, who took them to 5 the year before, were a super team in 2001 and were one game away from the finals.

                            I don't think it's worth dwelling over. Circumstances made keeping that team together impossible. I am a huge Walsh critic, but I don't think he deserves any blame/credit for blowing that team up. He really didn't have a choice.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                              i gotta agree with you. there was no way to keep that team together. and sadly, there will be those who will refuse to believe it under ANY circumstances.
                              a shame really but - it is what it is.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                                I'm beginning to re-examine this whole Darkside/Lightside deal. You have to be pretty optimistic to believe that 2000 team could have stayed together. (And in some cases had a chance to beat the Lakers.) Kegboy's at least remained constistant. Is he the true sith lord?
                                Last edited by Arcadian; 06-15-2007, 02:28 AM.
                                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X