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

The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

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

  • #16
    Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

    Originally posted by dal9 View Post
    hopefully vogel is less incompetent than thomas?
    He's not incompetent. He's just stubborn and vanilla. There's a dif. Some people screw up because they're just dumb and not too bright. Others are quite intelligent, but their stubborness doesn't allow them to change course when the ship is headed for a whirpool. Vogel is the latter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

      good lord how long did that post take to formulate OP?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

        Originally posted by ReggiesUncle View Post
        good lord how long did that post take to formulate OP?
        Hmm, it's like you've never seen a Naptown Seth post before. Post more often Seth, people have forgotten you

        Anyway, I'm not sure I buy the comparison. This team had already reached 03-04 level of postseason success last year; to think that they've regressed to 02-03 form all of a sudden doesn't seem understandable to me. In contrast to the 02-03 team, this bunch is a lot more proven.

        So, sure it's a possibility I guess. But not one that I think is very probable.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

          Nice to see Seth posting.

          Didn't 2 or 3 or so of the Pacers teams (not by Seth, or rather I don't recall who all that did) get compared to the 93-94 team at some point during the year, only those turned out to be some of the bad mid and late 2000's teams?

          I guess I appreciate the similarities here but I don't view it as a prophecy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

            Every time one of our guys gets chosen for the post-game interview, win or lose, they all have the party line down pat.

            What do we need to do to ensure a better showing against our next tough opponent? 'Get back to trusting each other, ball movement, focus on defense, take care of the ball...'

            They all say it. The coaches preach it. When the players actually do it, we shine. We get out to a lead, or we make a 15-point run to get back within a point or two...then it's right back to I-must-save-the-day isolation moves, jacked up threes, dribbling into traffic, panicky passing out of the crowd, and turnovers or contested jumpers to beat the shot clock.

            I don't think lack of flexibility or bad schemes are Coach's problems. Getting our stars to stick with the program under pressure, and not just render lip service post-game is a problem.

            The coaches, DWest...Rasual??...some combination of those has to get out the stick and keep the kids in line. Bench them if that's what it takes. See if Copeland, Butler, etc can stick with the game plan better. The affected players might wake up.

            ***************

            Good piece, Seth.


            [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

              Our offense has been very disjointed the last 15 games. This puts a lot of pressure on our defense when teams are fast breaking off of long rebounds or attacking immediately after a miss before our defense gets set. If Frank can evolve the offense a little I think things will be just fine.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                So we have the first three game losing streak of the season (after a 5 game winning streak) and we're all of the sudden similar to an immature team that had the most epic collapse in franchise history? That 03 team was an immature squad built on a foundation of sand with a ton of issues that at that point had never even won a playoff series together. The 2014 Pacers OTOH took the eventual champs to 7 games last year.

                Who else remembers when we lost 5 of 6 to finish the season a year ago? Remember when OKC came here on a Friday night in early April and DRILLED US, then the very next night we got smoked by the Wizards in the District. Then the next Friday the Nets came in here and clowned on us. Two days later the Knicks run all over us in the Garden. It was just a hideous stretch to finish the season....much worse than what's going on right now. Heck, we also looked pretty bad in those two games in the ATL when the Hawks tied the series up on us. Only after that point did we finally get it all together and go on our tear that took us to Game 7 in South Beach.

                Very few teams make it through an entire season without a rough stretch like this. I think that it's good for them. They can iron out some issues and it will remind them that they can't be so cocky. I still have complete faith in this team and will be shocked beyond belief if we aren't in the ECF's again.

                The near perfect start to the season was bad in that it raised expectations to unrealistic levels. This is not a perfect team and they were bound to go through a rough patch at some point. They will be fine when all of the chips are on the table.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-09-2014, 02:38 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                  Originally posted by Phree Refill View Post
                  Our offense has been very disjointed the last 15 games. This puts a lot of pressure on our defense when teams are fast breaking off of long rebounds or attacking immediately after a miss before our defense gets set. If Frank can evolve the offense a little I think things will be just fine.
                  Frank does need to evolve the offense. We have so many weapons it's insane. Frank is under-utilizing this roster.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    Thanks Seth. I was really trying to put that 02-03 season out of my mind.


                    Crazy comparison with some definite similarities.
                    I mean I'm not trying to be a d*** and bum everyone out, and I'm not trying to be overreacting. But GD, this looks REALLY familiar. Like when you went to see Airplane 2 and it felt really familiar.


                    The next week or so has a lot of crap teams so the wins are sitting right there for the taking. But this hasn't been a run of bad luck close losses, this has been a run of both wins and losses where the team looks borderline incompetent and definitely not playoff caliber.



                    Looking back we know Ron being weird was a big problem and JO vs Ron was a big problem. But Carlisle was able to come in and fix all those issues at least through 61 wins, 6 games of ECF and an awesome start the next year until the brawl. So it wasn't like Isiah shouldn't have been able to salvage something out of it. That team that fell apart was built with the exact same guys that won 61 games the next year, minus AS Brad Miller.

                    So it wasn't really obvious or inevitable for them to fall apart that year. Like I said, Ron even played some damn good games after his flame out and all his techs. Nothing about the situation was a lost cause.


                    The chemistry and/or strategy just fell apart and fell apart hard and quick. (TWSS) Is that not what this looks like right now? Freaking weird. I honestly never thought I'd see a Pacers season like that one ever again. Just being the top team in the East is rare enough, but to then have 2 all-stars, one in the MVP discussion and starting and the other your center, to have Lance in the Ron snub role, and then to see it start to crumble vs bad teams and then explode into full-on disaster. That s*** just doesn't normally happen.



                    By the way, having a bad final 5-7 games isn't the same, and it's not just as simple as the losses. The 2 MIL wins looked terrible. And the Denver win featured a Nuggets team missing it's top 2 guards, on the road and just a clusterf*** themselves. Ditto LAL. This is about struggling a bit with bad teams and being dominated by anything better than that. It's about feeling lucky when they get back into games like GSW or even Dallas. It's that odd feeling that a team has gone from dominating, really dominating, to just helpless and lost and have done it without a ton of clear issues like a major injury (ignoring behind the scenes issues we know about now from 02-03).

                    I honestly don't know what to think, except no way in hell they are winning 62. I would never put money down on them doing that, and I couldn't in good conscious take money from an optimistic Pacers fan either.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                      The past literally has no bearing on the future in this case.
                      There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                        We may be falling apart, but I still don't think this comparison holds water for the reasons Sollozzo pointed out. That 02-03 team hadn't even won a playoff series. They fell apart because they were young and inexperienced. This team is falling apart because of something else, but I have no idea what.

                        They are only similar in that both teams didn't play well after the all star break, but that's not exactly ground breaking.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                          I'm not ready to concede yet that this is anything more than coincidence.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                            So was the goal to have the top record in the East or even the NBA unrealistic?

                            You are supposed to beat the 4-5 worst teams in the NBA if you are an elite team. The Heat lost to WINNING TEAMS ON THE ROAD, and 2 of the games were nailbiter close. That's their version of a rough patch. Clunking along down 20 to Charlotte? Almost losing to Milwaukee at home?

                            How many 4 game losing streaks did they have last year if we are talking about things that happen all the time? (none)

                            The late season "collapse" - 47 win Nets and a 53 win Knicks (in NY). Then the seeding was locked for them and they lost to Philly while starting DJ, Green, Lance, Tyler and Ian (ie, no Hill, PG, West or Roy). The Wiz game was the one bad one, though it was at least a road game the night after losing to OKC. But okay, that could look like the Charlotte loss.

                            HOWEVER....

                            They had just beaten the 56 win Clippers IN LA to end a FOUR GAME WEST TRIP WIN STREAK!!

                            HOU - 45-37
                            DAL - 41-41
                            PHX - 25-57
                            LAC - 56-26


                            When was the last road win vs a 45+ win team (by win % pace I mean), let alone 2 within a 4 road game span? GSW on Jan 20th. And the last time they beat 2 teams of that caliber within 4 road games was LAC and SAS way back on Dec 7-10th. That's ALL 3 road wins this year against teams over .500 right now.

                            The losing streak LAST YEAR was more like what just happened to Miami. You play crushing ball, destroy people, then hit a tiny bump with a couple of close losses on a 3 game road trip against good playoff teams. So what this presents is that Miami is the team that can look at how Indy played in early April and shake it off. They can say "look we just ran off wins @OKC, @DAL, @GSW. We killed CHI in Miami, so we can absorb an OT loss in CHI and a 3pt loss in HOU."

                            The Pacers have no such recent success to lean on and shake this off. They can't look at their schedule and see a path nearly as easy as Miami now sees. The caliber of play we've seen suggests another 4 game losing streak during CHI, @MEM, @CHI, MIA with a risk of making it 5 with @NYK and @WSH on either end. And then you also have SAS, @MIA, and OKC as "unlikely to win" games based on the caliber of play the last month or so.




                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            So we have the first three game losing streak of the season (after a 5 game winning streak) and we're all of the sudden similar to an immature team that had the most epic collapse in franchise history? That 03 team was an immature squad built on a foundation of sand with a ton of issues that at that point had never even won a playoff series together. The 2014 Pacers OTOH took the eventual champs to 7 games last year.

                            Who else remembers when we lost 5 of 6 to finish the season a year ago? Remember when OKC came here on a Friday night in early April and DRILLED US, then the very next night we got smoked by the Wizards in the District. Then the next Friday the Nets came in here and clowned on us. Two days later the Knicks run all over us in the Garden. It was just a hideous stretch to finish the season....much worse than what's going on right now. Heck, we also looked pretty bad in those two games in the ATL when the Hawks tied the series up on us. Only after that point did we finally get it all together and go on our tear that took us to Game 7 in South Beach.

                            Very few teams make it through an entire season without a rough stretch like this. I think that it's good for them. They can iron out some issues and it will remind them that they can't be so cocky. I still have complete faith in this team and will be shocked beyond belief if we aren't in the ECF's again.

                            The near perfect start to the season was bad in that it raised expectations to unrealistic levels. This is not a perfect team and they were bound to go through a rough patch at some point. They will be fine when all of the chips are on the table.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              We may be falling apart, but I still don't think this comparison holds water for the reasons Sollozzo pointed out. That 02-03 team hadn't even won a playoff series. They fell apart because they were young and inexperienced. This team is falling apart because of something else, but I have no idea what.

                              They are only similar in that both teams didn't play well after the all star break, but that's not exactly ground breaking.
                              1) And in leading the East in wins

                              2) And in who their AS were, and like in a very, very, very identical way (I hadn't noticed some of this before)

                              How old was JO when he started that ASG? 24
                              It was JO's first start. It was his 2nd ASG since he was a reserve the prior year. He had won Most Improved the prior season. He was named to 3rd team all NBA the prior season. He played 33 ASG minutes that year.
                              His starting center teammate was an AS reserve, age 26. He played 10 ASG minutes, 4-5 for 8 points.
                              The Pacers snub was the famously annoying, "expressive" energy player that often drove the team and pi**ed off opponents.
                              The ASG coach was the Pacers head coach.

                              How old was Paul when he started this ASG? 23
                              It was PG's first start. It was his 2nd ASG since he was a reserve the prior year. He had won Most Improved the prior season. He was named to 3rd team all-NBA the prior season. He played 33 ASG minutes this year.
                              His starting center teammate was an AS reserve, age 27. He played ASG 12 minutes, 4-5 for 8 points.
                              The Pacers snub was the famously annoying, "expressive" energy player that often drove the team and pi**ed off opponents.
                              The ASG coach was the Pacers head coach.


                              3) Their first 4 game losing streak occurred on a road game in Texas. SAS then, DAL now. The schedule timing was a bit off, game 62 now, game 56 then. But pretty close.

                              4) The 2nd game in that losing streak occurred when they barfed up a road loss to terrible SE USA team. MEM then, CHA now

                              5) The "5th game" was a HOME GAME vs a sub-par East coast team. WSH then, BOS now.

                              6) And by the way game 6 back then was on the road vs....Boston. Game 6 this year is a road game vs another Atlantic team - PHI.

                              The good news for us is that Philly this year is the worst team in the NBA post trade deadline bailout. Contrast that with Boston being 32-25 at the time of that loss.


                              7) All the other stuff about the types of clunkers that started to show up before the full-on losing streak kicked in. It's not like the pattern of bad play was just these 4 losses, then or now.


                              INEXPERIENCE
                              This year's team is no older than that squad. I see your David West and match you with REGGIE FREAKING MILLER. Kenny Anderson as well. Plus that team had the offensive pop of Al Harrington coming off the bench. Pre-injury young Al which is greater than anything Scola or ET are doing right now.




                              I'm not ready to concede yet that this is anything more than coincidence.
                              Of course. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make some hocus-pocus voodoo point here. I'm just saying first off it's really weird and creepy almost, and second that the precedent for exactly this type of collapse being possible has been set.

                              Will they repeat that garbage? Good lord I hope not. But it certainly is something an elite Pacers team has done before, especially 1 relying on 4 starters in the 23-27 year old range flanked with a wily vet.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                                My point was we struggled mightily during the season last year, but turned it up for the playoffs
                                See my point where I countered this regarding that 4 game West coast win streak right before the 1-5. Plus it was 1-4 and then all the starters got the night off for the final game of the season. Plus it was 3 strong playoff teams after you just beat 2 strong West playoff team on the road the week prior which ended an 8-1 run.

                                "Struggled mightily" is a massive overstatement. They started 4-7 and 10-11. Then they went 39-21. And the 8-1 streak was probably the best stretch of ball they played all season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X