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

Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

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

  • #76
    Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Well I have to address this...

    The Pacers hosted the freaking Knicks.

    The Warriors hosted the Cavs. Jackson is the Cavs leading scorer tonight and already at 36 minutes played (8 more than 2nd place Al), Al has 28 minutes and even Saras is seeing 14 so far. The Warriors are up by 9 with 9 left in the 4th.

    Jack went out and the game is now down to 5 with 8:19 to go, but still...

    The point is that the Warriors had the same issue, have the players coming their way STARTING and playing the MOST minutes on the team, and they are beating one of the top East teams, not the lottery bound Knicks.

    So let's skip the "all that change" angle, it hasn't kept Jack from going 9/18 for 25 with 5 reb, 4 ast, and 5 steals. Not a good first result on this trade at all.
    You have to understand though, Nellie has a free-flowing system without a guy named J.O. Their leading scorer is out (Davis), and they're also missing Richardson. All they really have is Ellis and Pietrus as their main scorers. So unlike Dunleavy and Murphy, Harrington and Jackson had to come in and immediately be major parts of the offense. Whereas Murphy and Dunleavy had to blend in with J.O. and Granger while expecting the ball from Tinsley. It's a bit of a different situation. Plus it helps to have a coach that doesn't give a damn how much you shoot or when you do it. That game isn't quite over yet either.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Oh and yes Violet Palmer is a terrible ref. Just bad
      To say she is terrible is an insult to terrible refs everywhere.
      How she still has job I will never know.. or is it just for Pacers games ?

      And yes I was wondering the same thing UB, for all those that wanted a more likeable team, here is the time to put your money where your mouth is, no excuses. Hopefully the fringe or disenchanted fans do thier part and return.

      Why Not Us ?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

        And why should we skip the "all the change" angle?
        Um, pretty sure that was clear in the post. Because if a reason is a valid reason then the results from that reason should be rather consistant. So when the other team, facing just as much change, comes out looking strong then it hurts the strength of the theory, no matter how much you want to support it with anecdotes of how moving has been tough for you and me.

        I think it is 90 degrees out right now. You show me a thermometer that says 33. I say "so what, maybe the day decided to cool down just then, haven't you ever seen a day get colder suddenly". That is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that it's not 90 out, period. My point is that they played bad defense 2 games in a row, which is correct, period.

        They played poor defense vs Miami WITHOUT NEW PEOPLE TRYING TO LEARN. They were missing Al (considered a bust on defense) and Saras (definitely not a defensive ace).

        So how about you tell me why they just gave up 10-15% higher shooting to MIAMI than they have in 2-3 years through all sorts of lineups (including missing Ron, JO, etc)?

        Seeing it happen again vs NY at home makes it look troublesome. GS just held a team under 100 in regulation. Normally they were giving up around 105 IIRC. Again, just coincidence I suppose.

        At some point though if facts like these keep lining up they will need to be accounted for. God knows that if they held NY to 38% and 89 points tonight it would have shut up my defensive concerns angle.

        You want me to give it a rest, get the Pacers to support you with some results and you won't even be the first one to point it out, I will be right in discussing it myself.

        Till then of course it's going to get mentioned because its a very bad sign.


        So unlike Dunleavy and Murphy, Harrington and Jackson had to come in and immediately be major parts of the offense.
        This only makes my case stronger. The Pacers had the luxury of not having to force the new guys in, so the point of "yeah but they had to deal with new players" is invalid.

        By your own point it was actually the Warriors who were faced with HAVING to use the new players. Talk about trial by fire.

        It's not the scoring I'm on about, it's the total effort combined with the RESULTS. It's 98-98 going to OT as I type this and they might lose, but if so it will be to the Cavs, not the Knicks.

        And it will be despite some ALLEDGED handicap of new players, because those guys did get a serious amount of playing time. If being new is a problem and they played more than the new Pacers then the THEORY that this is a handicap would be proven out when the Warriors flopped more than the Pacers, not a lot less.

        See, that's how science and logic dictate, not gut feeling and truthiness.

        If something is a cause then it should a cause in similar situations, and more so when it exists more. More newness on the court in GS should mean more struggles by the "new guys cause problems" view.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

          And how many game winners has JO hit, granted Granger hasn't it many if any. But JO's I guarantee could be counted on one had. Not like he is clutch.
          Granger will make that shot just give him a few more and then there a good as gold.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Um, pretty sure that was clear in the post. Because if a reason is a valid reason then the results from that reason should be rather consistant. So when the other team, facing just as much change, comes out looking strong then it hurts the strength of the theory, no matter how much you want to support it with anecdotes of how moving has been tough for you and me.

            I think it is 90 degrees out right now. You show me a thermometer that says 33. I say "so what, maybe the day decided to cool down just then, haven't you ever seen a day get colder suddenly". That is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that it's not 90 out, period. My point is that they played bad defense 2 games in a row, which is correct, period.

            They played poor defense vs Miami WITHOUT NEW PEOPLE TRYING TO LEARN. They were missing Al (considered a bust on defense) and Saras (definitely not a defensive ace).

            So how about you tell me why they just gave up 10-15% higher shooting to MIAMI than they have in 2-3 years through all sorts of lineups (including missing Ron, JO, etc)?

            Seeing it happen again vs NY at home makes it look troublesome. GS just held a team under 100 in regulation. Normally they were giving up around 105 IIRC. Again, just coincidence I suppose.

            At some point though if facts like these keep lining up they will need to be accounted for. God knows that if they held NY to 38% and 89 points tonight it would have shut up my defensive concerns angle.

            You want me to give it a rest, get the Pacers to support you with some results and you won't even be the first one to point it out, I will be right in discussing it myself.

            Till then of course it's going to get mentioned because its a very bad sign.



            This only makes my case stronger. The Pacers had the luxury of not having to force the new guys in, so the point of "yeah but they had to deal with new players" is invalid.

            By your own point it was actually the Warriors who were faced with HAVING to use the new players. Talk about trial by fire.

            It's not the scoring I'm on about, it's the total effort combined with the RESULTS. It's 98-98 going to OT as I type this and they might lose, but if so it will be to the Cavs, not the Knicks.

            And it will be despite some ALLEDGED handicap of new players, because those guys did get a serious amount of playing time. If being new is a problem and they played more than the new Pacers then the THEORY that this is a handicap would be proven out when the Warriors flopped more than the Pacers, not a lot less.

            See, that's how science and logic dictate, not gut feeling and truthiness.

            If something is a cause then it should a cause in similar situations, and more so when it exists more. More newness on the court in GS should mean more struggles by the "new guys cause problems" view.
            In case you haven't noticed, the Knicks haven't exactly been playing like a lottery team lately. They're in a groove right now. Even with a back to back, they still had momentum on their side. They're a team with an identity. We're a team trying to find one -- and from what I saw tonight we're finally on the right track.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

              Alright Seth, the GSW lost to the Cavs.

              Since both teams lost does that make the trade "even"?

              They played poor defense vs Miami WITHOUT NEW PEOPLE TRYING TO LEARN. They were missing Al (considered a bust on defense) and Saras (definitely not a defensive ace).

              So how about you tell me why they just gave up 10-15% higher shooting to MIAMI than they have in 2-3 years through all sorts of lineups (including missing Ron, JO, etc)?
              It is the NBA. Some nights you play unbelivable great, others you play horridly.

              Look, I understand you love stats, but stats do not tell the whole story. Should the Pacers come out and hold the next two opponets
              to 85-90 points it will be moot.

              I can understand your worry about the Knicks looking good against us, but the Hawks swept us last season. Anything is possible in the NBA.........

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                BTW, your all spun up because you think I'm a "Jack fan". I'm not. I just wasn't a lunitic blind hatred fan who saw every fault as a 10 and every positive as a 1. The sum total of what he brought to the court was modestly productive on both ends.

                It was only the tiresome rantings of "he's killing them, it's all his fault" that have ever made me defend him as a player.

                If Tins and Jack had been traded for Andre Miler I would have done backflips all the way to Conseco. I'm not against Jack being moved.

                I just want some freaking PERIMETER DEFENSE on the team, and moving the one guy providing that on a regular basis for 3 frontline players, 2 of whom are rather sluggish at times, is not my idea of making that situation better.


                Seroiusly, stop right here and you tell me how Dun, Murph and Ike make the Pacers PERIMETER defense better than Jack did.

                I don't care about the passing, the attitude, the smarts because it's worthless if the team has no perimeter defense.

                Maybe next time trade Jack and Al for a SHOOTING GUARD that can defend better than Jackson can. There are plenty out there and any one of them would have made me very happy to see coming back.


                Stop thinking my issue is with Jack. It's not. It's with the makeup of the roster and what skill sets must be available to this team. I understand moving Jack for off-court issues. Just don't be stupid about it.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  BTW, your all spun up because you think I'm a "Jack fan". I'm not. I just wasn't a lunitic blind hatred fan who saw every fault as a 10 and every positive as a 1. The sum total of what he brought to the court was modestly productive on both ends.
                  That is pretty harsh coming from anyone on these forums. I have no clue who had that "lunitic blind hatred fan" refrence was for, but I seriously hope not me. If it was, you are sadly mistaken on me and how I look at the situation.

                  I do not agree that he was productive at both ends of the floor (he could have been had he "choosen" to play defense and not stand back and argue with the refs while he man raced down court and got a easy layup) but that is a discussion for another day.

                  I just want some freaking PERIMETER DEFENSE on the team, and moving the one guy providing that on a regular basis for 3 frontline players, 2 of whom are rather sluggish at times, is not my idea of making that situation better.
                  Dont we all. I would love to move Tinsley for a defensive minded PG.

                  The only problem was the negatives outweighed the positives when it came to Jack. That is only counting on the floor, that is not counting the "off court" issues

                  Maybe next time trade Jack and Al for a SHOOTING GUARD that can defend better than Jackson can. There are plenty out there and any one of them would have made me very happy to see coming back.
                  Who said we still cant/wont make that trade............

                  Stop thinking my issue is with Jack. It's not. It's with the makeup of the roster and what skill sets must be available to this team. I understand moving Jack for off-court issues. Just don't be stupid about it.
                  I will when you get some stats that support your results

                  Seriously, I did not think I would strike that much of a nerve and I apologize for getting you all that fired up. It really is not that serious, it is a internet message board. When you defend the guy every time his name comes up that sends a message, at least it does to me. I have never seen you be harsh on the guy. Regardless, sorry to see you get all fired up.

                  I need to some some sleep.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                    It is the NBA. Some nights you play unbelivable great, others you play horridly.
                    This isn't what you said though is it? I believe your view was that it was VERY CONSISTANT. That teams with lots of new players will naturally play poorly.

                    One is - its random

                    The other is - its based on new players more than anything

                    I said - even before the new guys they had created a defensive issue that the new players wouldn't fix

                    I showed that new guys couldn't be the overriding issue because the other team wasn't affected by it, it wasn't a consistant factor so it couldn't be relied upon as a definite reason.

                    If A causes B, then B should always follow A. If it only does some of the time because "it's the NBA" then logically you can't say "A causes B" because apparently some other factors keep that from happening lots of nights.


                    If you were just saying "hey, the MIA and NY games were just flukes, that's the NBA" I couldn't really argue it. It wouldn't be strong point because it doesn't really tell us anything, but it doesn't take a stand that is contradicted that same night in another game.


                    Right now "Pacers got worse defensively" is 2 for 2 in the testing. This p****s you off for some reason. I don't know why that is. I'm not making it happen or wishing it to happen, but I do think I'm right about it being an issue.



                    I realize the Knicks are getting "better", but seriously who thinks the Knicks are a better victory than the Cavs right now? And BTW, the Warriors were without Baron and Richardson. Did I miss where the Pacers went without JO and Foster?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                      That is pretty harsh coming from anyone on these forums. I have no clue who had that "lunitic blind hatred fan" refrence was for, but I seriously hope not me. If it was, you are sadly mistaken on me and how I look at the situation.
                      It wasn't for you. It was to explain why you often might see me "defending" Jackson. He didn't suck. People thought that. I had a problem with that because it's irrational.

                      I assume you saw me defend him because you mistook me for Jackson fan. That's no more true than someone thinking I dislike Granger or Foster because I crtique parts of their game, when in fact they might be my 2 favorite players (tough to go against JO but he's so popular already).

                      I can understand your worry about the Knicks looking good against us, but the Hawks swept us last season. Anything is possible in the NBA.........
                      This point doesn't help your case if its to prove that I have no need to worry about the direction this team is headed. Last year's team turned into a disaster of befuddlement and finished with some very poor play. Me saying "they just took a turn for a worse" is not contradicted by saying "don't worry, the same thing happened last year".


                      Regardless, sorry to see you get all fired up.
                      Well let's be fair here. I put "53.2% FG allowed". That's not fired up. That's just a stat. A strong enough stat that you knew the point without me explaining it, but still just a number.

                      Your response was "give it a rest". To me that sounds a little bent out of shape and I didn't think it was warranted at the time.


                      I think you are irritated with me not loving this latest trade, and it's true that I didn't. But I don't believe in not fighting fair. I'm worried about the defense, and as long as they keep running out numbers most nights (say 70% or more) that back this view then I'm going to keep it.

                      So we know the terms of "war" as it were, and that it's not personal just a debate over a differing view. In this case my hopes are with your side winning within a few weeks. Until then I just can't my POV on the issue.

                      This is just not

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
                        I'm gonna say one single thing because I already said it all after the Miami game, and this one fact backs up my complaint from that thread.

                        52.3% FG for the freaking NY Knicks IN INDY, not MSG. 108 points allowed.
                        On the surface...I agree with you...we should not be giving up this many points.....much less at a home game.

                        But to be fair......in the Miami game....we were "technically" short 2 of our regular starters and we did give extended ( but admittedly not significant ) minutes to Shawne and Rawle. And this is the first game with 2 new players playing a decent # of minutes on a team where Defense usually is emphasized.

                        However, if we continue to play like this after 3 more games....then I will start to worry....until then...I will give the team ( 2 games after the trade ) the benefit of the doubt.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                          Was anybody else surprised that Daniels only got 18 minutes tonight?I figured coming off the game he just had and Saras leaving he would be getting 30 minutes from here on out and would be our 6th man.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                            The point is that the Warriors had the same issue, have the players coming their way STARTING and playing the MOST minutes on the team, and they are beating one of the top East teams, not the lottery bound Knicks.
                            .
                            It's been a National Passtime kicking the Knick's while they are down, and personally I've loved it!

                            However . . . is no one paying attention? The Knick's have a 300 pound monster at center. They have a very good point guard in Starbury, plus they have a guard in Crawford that is good in the clutch, three vital ingredient's to making a good team. They have other good players. They were kicked around last year by the press and they really, really, want to shove it down people's throats. You also have a motivated Isiah Thomas. Add it up.

                            I did, and I said before the season started the Knick's would make the playoffs. Barring injury, I STILL SAY THEY WILL!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                              Look at it this way...


                              The Knicks, even with two straight one-point tip in losses, are 5-3 in their past 8 games.



                              It doesn't make up for us allowing 52% shooting, but the Knicks have been playing well as of late.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks

                                We haven't played good defense in three straight games...

                                Btw, the first player that comes to my mind when I think ATHLETIC is Eddy Curry. I mean, that's a no brainer. Then second is a tie between Joel Pryzbilla and, does Tractor Traylor still play?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X