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

  • #76
    Re: 1999/2000 Finals

    Look I've been fighting this battle for 7 years now and it is going nowhere fast.

    We will all just agree to disagree.

    I am entitled to my opinion as each you are entitled to yours.

    I stand by my beief that the 2001 team would have returned to the finals if given the chance.

    I will go to my death believing that we had a mixture of youth and experiance to make the next few years as title contenders.

    The Jamaal Tinsley trade could have been made just as it was and then Jamaal would have been able to play behind Mark for a year and learn.

    Jalen and Travis could still have been traded for Ron and Brad.

    However instead of having a complete void of leadership that they walked into after the trade there would still have been Dale, Mark and Reggie.

    I'm not saying that Ron would have been any better but I wonder how he would have been on a team that had people who would have stood up to him.

    I will always believe these things.

    You can call them old or used or whatever. I just know that not 5 months before that same group of players played at the highest level in the NBA and were beaten by a Monster who was on a mission.

    But I certainly understand why some people didn't like them.

    Mark & Dale were the bass and drum player of the rock band. You take away the rhythm section from any band and replace it with another lead guitarist and you just won't go very far.

    Jermaine, Al and Jon all were talented but they didn't mesh and there was a void of leadership.

    But hey that's just me.

    I look forward to saying that Danny, Ike & Andrew are the best front court in the Pacers history one day.


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

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: 1999/2000 Finals

      Peck, aren't you severely undervaluing Rik?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: 1999/2000 Finals

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        However instead of having a complete void of leadership that they walked into after the trade there would still have been Dale, Mark and Reggie.
        How would we have kept Mark? We offered him a larger salary than he got from the Raptors, but he turned it down because he wanted more years.

        Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.

        I believe that if we'd brought the exact same team back, we'd have done well. But once you lose 2 starters and some key backups then it's simply not the same team. It's just not.

        I look forward to saying that Danny, Ike & Andrew are the best front court in the Pacers history one day.
        Now that I can agree with.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: 1999/2000 Finals

          I think Rose and AC would come around on Rick, and in fact Croshere did (as the quote from him posted around here a few weeks ago suggests).

          You cave and give Jax that extra year. I still make the Dale/JO trade. Peck hates it, but it replaces Rik as a post threat while keeping 10 boards in the game too.

          I really don't think they were that far off, which the results of that season proved. Having Jax with Reggie would certainly help in leadership aspects, and from that view I can see a Peck point that a trio of Dale/Jax/Reggie would clearly instill a sense of who's team it was still, even when you deal for Ron/Brad the following year and draft Tinsley.


          Instead they basically started over, at least by the end of 01-02. New coach, almost entirely new core. That breaks the continuity of respect and learning. Utah struggled out of the playoffs for a year, but the fact is that AK47 got to play with Karl and Stockton and provide that link to the new guys. And Sloan has that effect ten-fold.

          I will always believe these things.

          You can call them old or used or whatever.
          As long as I get to keep saying the GS trade was a disaster and that Jackson wasn't the devil, just meh, then you can say whatever you want.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: 1999/2000 Finals

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            How would we have kept Mark? We offered him a larger salary than he got from the Raptors, but he turned it down because he wanted more years.
            How 'bout they get extended in 99 (Reggie and Mjax both) like they wanted?

            Walsh poisoned the the punchbowl when he decided the team was done in '99 and totally misjudged pretty much everything at that point and allowed some animosity to brew. His handling of the team went from conservative to incompetent. And it's been mostly misjudgements and mistakes ever since.

            Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.
            Keep repeating the myth. There's nothing to substantiate it but if enough people say it by repeating each other then it has to be fact.

            -Bball
            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


            • #81
              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.
              True to a degree. Rose actually started the season hurt, and even when he returned he didn't move to point till mid-December some 25 games into the season. As it stands Best still played 2400+ minutes and they were all at PG. When Rose was moved to PG Best became the 6th man, moving Rose out of the point when he came into the game. Rose got to START as the PG, but often he didn't finish the game that way.

              However while checking on some of this I came across a moment I forgot, Rose dropped 20 dimes on Cleveland at the end of the 00-01 season. TWENTY. That's a lot of assists by any standard.


              Also BTW, that 00-01 team had to go freaking 8-1 to finish the season just to get to 41-41. I forgot they ran off that many wins at the end. I knew they saved it, but just not to that degree. Their one loss in that 9 game run? The stinkin Sixers who would then beat them in 4 just a couple of weeks later. However it should be noted that the loss to the Sixers came AFTER the Magic had sealed up the 7th spot just 2 days earlier, making the Sixers game meaningless for Indy.

              One other note, Rose's zero effort last second shot in game 4 which showed no heart even if it would have been a miracle is where he lost me. Had that ball gone into Reggie instead you know that just like with the Nets the following year he at least would have made a real attempt. As I recall with Rose he made a non-effort one-handed "we've lost" pitch that didn't hit rim nor backboard. To me that said a lot about character. It was a 3pt game at home, you already had 1 win. At least try for the miracle and make this crowd go nuts.

              Just a bit more since we are discussing Best/Rose, from the AP on game 4 (found at CNNSI.com), I'd forgotten the Best part of it
              A 3-point basket by Travis Best gave Indiana an 85-82 lead with just over two minutes to go, but McKie pulled the 76ers within one. Then Mutombo blocked a shot by Derrick McKey and scored on a hook shot with 1:09 remaining. After an exchange of possessions with no scoring, Reggie Miller missed a 3-pointer and McKie pulled down the rebound with 5.8 seconds to go. He was immediately fouled and hit both free throws. Jalen Rose then missed a 3-pointer for Indiana as the game ended.
              and later in the report
              Rose said the last play was designed to go to Miller for a tying 3-pointer.
              "They defended him, so I put up the shot," Rose said. "It wasn't my best shot. I feel a responsibility. I had a mediocre series when my team needed a phenomenal series. They were the better team, and they played like it."
              I'll say.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-15-2007, 11:26 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.
                Bingo. For as bad as Rick was with "people skills" this time around, it was much worse when he was an assistant... when Donnie passed him over and during his exit interview suggested he needed to work on his personality, not his x's and o's.

                There was no way in the world Donnie was going to put Rick in charge of that group of players. Only Larry Bird would've done something that dumb.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                  Originally posted by Jay View Post
                  Bingo. For as bad as Rick was with "people skills" this time around, it was much worse when he was an assistant... when Donnie passed him over and during his exit interview suggested he needed to work on his personality, not his x's and o's.

                  There was no way in the world Donnie was going to put Rick in charge of that group of players. Only Larry Bird would've done something that dumb.
                  Forget Rick then. Hire Byron Scott who was also asked to wait while Isiah tried to free himself from the financial scandal and legal repsonsibilities regarding the CBA, which should have in no way been the slightest bit of a warning sign.

                  Let's see, of the 3 coaches which one was it that went to 2 Finals, including beating both Zeke and Rick straight up in playoff series? And Jim O'Brien as well.

                  In other words, forget throwing RC under the bus and pretending like Isiah was inevitable or even the 2nd best choice.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    In other words, forget throwing RC under the bus and pretending like Isiah was inevitable or even the 2nd best choice.


                    -Bball
                    Last edited by Bball; 06-15-2007, 12:07 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


                    • #85
                      Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                      Byron Scott was clearly the best choice, but he joined NJ pretty early in the process, forcing DW to choose between Isiah (whom the players and Donnie wanted) and Rick (whom Bird wanted but Bird decided not to stick around.)
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                        Byron,

                        coaching a team of Best, Rose, Miller, McKey, Croshere, JO, Perkins, and Harrington would have still needed a bit more PG help but could have taken that team to the ECFs. I'm not convinced that the 2000 Pacers, without Smits and Jackson, would get back to The Finals. But they could've had a deep playoff run with Byron coaching instead of Zeke.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          How would we have kept Mark? We offered him a larger salary than he got from the Raptors, but he turned it down because he wanted more years.

                          Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.

                          I believe that if we'd brought the exact same team back, we'd have done well. But once you lose 2 starters and some key backups then it's simply not the same team. It's just not.


                          Now that I can agree with.

                          Simple, you offer him one more year. What differance would it have made in our salary structure? Have we been under or near under the cap even once since then? The answer to that is no.

                          They didn't offer him that one extra year because they didn't care about keeping him because of Jalen.

                          I'll ask it now. Would you have rather had paid the one extra year to Jackson who was clearly the leader of that team or the six years we paid to Croshere? And remember I liked Croshere, but between the two there was no choice IMO. Mark was a starter who was one of the leaders of that team.

                          Austin was a bench player who had potential but a limited game even though he had a very good playoff series.

                          You don't just let Mark Jackson walk away.

                          The Dale thing is hard to debate because of the circumstances that surrounded it.

                          I won't argue the merits because we've all done that before.

                          So if you wanna say Dale had to be traded because of his actions I won't argue and anybody that was around back then knows I was all for moving him as well. In fact I said send him to Vancouver at the time.

                          The problem I have is how can you just throw out a team that was only 2 games away from being the Champs when you already had young players up an coming on the roster? It didn't make sense to me then and it doesn't make sense to me now.


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

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                            I disagree that one year was the reason for Mark's leaving. Just as easily as it is to say the Pacers needed to add one year to keep the leader of a finals team, it can also be said that Mark should have taken one less year and more money to stay with a team that made it to the finals.

                            I think a big part of Mark's leaving had to do with that there were two people who thought they should be starting at pg. As evidenced by his Utah stint starting was important to him. He ended up going to Toronto where his competition was Alvin Williamson who up to that point wasn't considered starting material.

                            I think there were other factors there like AD, Vince, higher taxes, colder weather, and God's will but really most of it I will always believe had to do with his wanting to start.

                            I still think that he was done when he left us anyway or done enough where he wouldn't have made up for the absences of Rik and Dale. Also when we signed Cro it was thought that he was going to be a starter at SF and Rose at point.
                            Last edited by Arcadian; 06-15-2007, 03:25 PM.
                            "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


                            • #89
                              Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                              Peck, aren't you severely undervaluing Rik?

                              Welcome to cyber Pacerland, where Rik and Jalen Rose seem to get 0 credit for any success the Pacers had.

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVa6CMssZes

                              Man, Rik was on there. What a touch, he abused Salley those couple possesions.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


                                Also BTW, that 00-01 team had to go freaking 8-1 to finish the season just to get to 41-41. I forgot they ran off that many wins at the end. I knew they saved it, but just not to that degree. Their one loss in that 9 game run? The stinkin Sixers who would then beat them in 4 just a couple of weeks later. However it should be noted that the loss to the Sixers came AFTER the Magic had sealed up the 7th spot just 2 days earlier, making the Sixers game meaningless for Indy.
                                Meaningless? Huh? I thought the Pacers clinched on the last day of the season that year (Maybe I'm wrong). Every game down the stretch was practically a must.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-15-2007, 04:40 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X