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

1994 Pacers

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

  • 1994 Pacers

    The other day I was wondering how far away this Pacers team was from being a contender.

    I decided to look at the 2000 Pacers since that has been the only team we had that made it to the NBA Finals. After looking at that team, I realized that we are no where close to having what that team had, so I decided to look at the first Pacers team to make it to the ECF, the 1994 Pacers.

    For those of you who may be curious, the 2000 Pacers had 3 one time all-stars in the starting lineup. Mark Jackson, Dale Davis and Rik Smits. They also had Derrick McKey who had made all defensive teams twice in his career. Of course the other starter was 5 time all-star and future Hall of Famer, Reggie Miller. There was also a veteran off the bench that was nearing the end of his career, 5 time all-star and future Hall of Famer, Chris Mullin. So the team had 5 all-stars (including 2 future HOFers) plus a player who had twice made the NBA all defensive team. They were also a veteran team.

    I move on to the 1994 team and was surprised. The 1994 team had (at the time) a one time all-star in Reggie Miller. That’s it. The only other notable player was Byron Scott because he had won an NBA title. Now that 1994 team also had 3 other future all-stars (Dale Davis, Antonio Davis and Rik Smits) but as of 1994 the only player that had made an all-star team was Reggie Miller.

    Our current team has a one time al-star in Sabonis. That’s all we have now, so in that perspective, we have as much as the 1994 team did that made it to the ECF. Unfortunately, I do not see a Hall of Fame player on the current roster. I’m not even sure if there will be any future all-stars. And while Coach B may become a very good coach, he does not have the experience that Larry Brown did.

    I just thought I would share my findings, I found it very interesting that the 1994 team only had 1 all-star.

  • #2
    That team also started 16-23, so it wasn’t the best start. Even as a youngster I could tell that team was special. I think we have the talent to be special, and we’re seeing a few things here and there, but my gut feeling isn’t good right now.

    I’m certain we have the talent to win in the playoffs. This week is super important because we have two games in eight days. We need practice, sorely, and we need to show development and progress.

    We also need to figure out why we play worse when our best player is playing.

    Comment


    • #3
      I remember the 1994 team extremely well. A season I will never forget because it was the first time a Pacers team that I followed won a playoff series. I had been following the Pacers for about 15 seasons at that point. Pacers started the regular season 16-23 - had just lost 5 straight - didn't seem like they were set to finish the season 31-12. Just looking at the box score on the game that started the 31-12 record, pacers only shot 6 threes the entire game - Reggie was 2 of 3.

      Larry Brown brought a very different type of play to the team. Aggressive, disruptive, a physicalness that I had never seen a Pacers team play before. There were some signs early in the season that the team was different, but no clear sign that the team was any better than the previous several .500 and first round and out teams. Pacers had traded Detlef schrempf for McKey. Most fans thought that was a terrible trade. In fact I will never forget a fan walking right up to Donnie Walsh during one of the first games after the trade and screaming at Walsh about how bad the trade was.

      Most fans will credit Rik Smits and Reggie Miller for the turn around. well they had been here for several years. What was different was Larry Brown, Mckey, Dale and Antonio David - that is what turned it around. I will mention B. Scott also. I remember a quote from Phil Jackson about the Pacers when he was asked about the teams turn around, he credited Mckey and Davis. I will never see a better defensive forward tandem on a pacers team in my lifetime.

      OK, enough about 1994 - are there any comparisons to this years team? Maybe - a new coach trying to install a disruptive and aggressive style. An early season trade Vic for LeVert. Team struggling through the first half of the season. A team that had made playoff several years prior , but never won a series. Maybe
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-16-2021, 12:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the 2017-18 team was much closer to 1993-94 team. They started slow, finished strong and punched LeBron and the Cav's right in the mouth from the start of that series. A couple of borderline bad calls go differently and the Pacers could have easily won that series. The no call goal tending with LeBron & Vic. Myles And1 at the end of game 7 that got called an offensive foul after Tristan Thompson spent the entire second half playing football in the paint etc. The Cav's also needed a big offensive fourth quarter from George Hill to close that game out too....

        Just bad luck that they drew the Cav's as the 4-seed in round one whereas the '94 Pacers got the Magic as a 4-seed with a 21-year old Shaq in his second season & Hardaway as a rookie. Remember the Cav's swept the Raptors in Round 2 in '18 so had that team got past the Cav's an ECF appearance just like '94 was very possible.

        I think this team might end up more like the 2001-02 team that played around .500 for the year but took an underappreciated Nets team pretty close to elimination....
        Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 02-16-2021, 01:04 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sav View Post
          For those of you who may be curious, the 2000 Pacers had 3 one time all-stars in the starting lineup. Mark Jackson, Dale Davis and Rik Smits. They also had Derrick McKey who had made all defensive teams twice in his career. Of course the other starter was 5 time all-star and future Hall of Famer, Reggie Miller. There was also a veteran off the bench that was nearing the end of his career, 5 time all-star and future Hall of Famer, Chris Mullin. So the team had 5 all-stars (including 2 future HOFers) plus a player who had twice made the NBA all defensive team. They were also a veteran team.
          Shouldn't gauge a team based on how many "at some point in their 14yr career they were once" all-stars a squad has. I think most would agree that the '00 team was probably better than the '94 team. HOWEVER, I would take each of the '95, '96, '98, and '99 teams over the Finals '00 team. So many variables to consider when making such comparisons.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by croz24 View Post

            Shouldn't gauge a team based on how many "at some point in their 14yr career they were once" all-stars a squad has. I think most would agree that the '00 team was probably better than the '94 team. HOWEVER, I would take each of the '95, '96, '98, and '99 teams over the Finals '00 team. So many variables to consider when making such comparisons.

            1998 was probably our best overall team......but one major edge the 00 team had over some other teams is that Reggie finally had a legit number two scorer at his side in Jalen Rose. The only other time he really had that was in 1995 when Smits was a monster and outplayed Ewing in that series, as well as having a good series against Shaq and Orlando. Unfortunately, Smits started having foot trouble after that and he was never quite as good as he was in 1995. So Rose blossoming in the 99-00 season was crucial to that Finals run.


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


              1998 was probably our best overall team......but one major edge the 00 team had over some other teams is that Reggie finally had a legit number two scorer at his side in Jalen Rose. The only other time he really had that was in 1995 when Smits was a monster and outplayed Ewing in that series, as well as having a good series against Shaq and Orlando. Unfortunately, Smits started having foot trouble after that and he was never quite as good as he was in 1995. So Rose blossoming in the 99-00 season was crucial to that Finals run.

              Agree about '98. Rose was an ok #2 scorer but the rest of that team was fairly old and over the hill, and also took advantaged of a diminished NBA. Doubt you'll find many NBA teams throughout history with a core roster all close to being mid-30s, with a fat starting point/back-up center and a center who could barely move up the court. Yes, we still should have at least taken that series to 7 against the Lakers, but the superior versions of those same players were on the '95-99 squads. Consider the weakening NBA/Eastern Conf as well.
              Last edited by croz24; 02-16-2021, 02:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                1998 was and probably still is the best NBA edition of the Pacers ever.

                1994 might be the toughest, though.
                Last edited by Kstat; 02-16-2021, 03:00 PM.

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

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I remember the 1994 team extremely well. A season I will never forget because it was the first time a Pacers team that I followed won a playoff series. I had been following the Pacers for about 15 seasons at that point. Pacers started the regular season 16-23 - had just lost 5 straight - didn't seem like they were set to finish the season 31-12.
                  You didn’t think they were going to turn it around? I just remember feeling an energy about that team that was different.

                  We several heartbreaking buzzer beater losses. We had the one against the Bulls that is most shown, where Reggie bowed and then Kukoc banked in a three at the buzzer. But we also had one where Gheorge Muresan hit a put back bucket for the Bullets. And then we had one of the most ridiculous shots I’ve ever seen when Dana Barros hit a three that he caught in the air at the buzzer for the 76ers. I looked for it on YouTube but couldn’t find it. Maybe KStat has it? Pacers/76ers 1/14/94.

                  And then we started winning. We had that huge win on the road against the Rockets who were dominant at the time. That was that first big win when we were 16-23. We came back from a deficit in the fourth. I distinctly remember Dale Davis making two great blocks on one possession and then he ran down and converted an and-1 on the other end. I just remember at that moment thinking we had a special team, but it didn’t really hit until Byron hit the three against the Magic.
                  Last edited by imawhat; 02-16-2021, 04:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post

                    You didn’t think they were going to turn it around? I just remember feeling an energy about that team that was different.

                    We several heartbreaking buzzer beater losses. We had the one against the Bulls that is most shown, where Reggie bowed and then Kukoc banked in a three at the buzzer. But we also had one where Gheorge Muresan hit a put back bucket for the Bullets. And then we had one of the most ridiculous shots I’ve ever seen when Dana Barros hit a three that he caught in the air at the buzzer for the 76ers. I looked for it on YouTube but couldn’t find it. Maybe KStat has it? Pacers/76ers 1/14/94.

                    And then we started winning. We had that huge win on the road against the Rockets who were dominant at the time. That was that first big win when we were 16-23. We came back from a deficit in the fourth. I distinctly remember Dale Davis making two great blocks on one possession and then he ran down and converted an and-1 on the other end. I just remember at that moment thinking we had a special team, but it didn’t really hit until Byron hit the three against the Magic.

                    I remember thinking that it was different type team. But I wondered if we had enough offense, and of course listening to Larry Brown suggest that he didn't think they did, made me think well OK, now we have defense, Davis boys, Mckey, but we needed a point guard badly and needed a little more offense. So no I didn't think they would ever finish the season at 45-37 and get to the 7th game of the ECF - never dreamed of that. They had never won a playoff series before. Yes the energy was different, but there were still holes on he team. ECF wasn't in my realm of dreaming at that point. Winning a playoff series would have been like a championship at that point.

                    I have often said I learned more about the NBA from Larry Brown when he was Pacers coach and from watching games Hubie Brown back when he wasn't 86 years old (Like he is now) but back in the 90's Hubie Brown was a God like figure to me.

                    I remember after game 5 of the ECF when Reggie scored 25 points in the 4th quarter - not being able to work (I mean I was present at work physically, but I was too excited for game 6 to get anything accomplished. It was almost like an


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Love the 94 and 98 teams. Just mentally tough as nails. I think 2000 still had it, but we missed AD. Although Big Smooth and Mullin were nice off the bench.

                      But I've got to recognize three essential PG contributors. The first two to the 94 group and the latter to 2000: Vern Fleming, Haywood Workman, Travis Best. Great role players all three, despite their weaknesses.

                      More or less 92 on until 2000 was a great ride. Great coaching (sorry non-Bird folks), great players, great chemistry. Credit to Walsh and the Simons too. Will never forget memories from that run.

                      The Chuck Person era from around 87 to 91 wasn't shabby either. There was a lot of fun and enjoyable players in there as well.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post


                        I remember thinking that it was different type team. But I wondered if we had enough offense, and of course listening to Larry Brown suggest that he didn't think they did, made me think well OK, now we have defense, Davis boys, Mckey, but we needed a point guard badly and needed a little more offense. So no I didn't think they would ever finish the season at 45-37 and get to the 7th game of the ECF - never dreamed of that. They had never won a playoff series before. Yes the energy was different, but there were still holes on he team. ECF wasn't in my realm of dreaming at that point. Winning a playoff series would have been like a championship at that point.

                        I have often said I learned more about the NBA from Larry Brown when he was Pacers coach and from watching games Hubie Brown back when he wasn't 86 years old (Like he is now) but back in the 90's Hubie Brown was a God like figure to me.

                        I remember after game 5 of the ECF when Reggie scored 25 points in the 4th quarter - not being able to work (I mean I was present at work physically, but I was too excited for game 6 to get anything accomplished. It was almost like an

                        Once we got beyond the first round, I felt like we matched up really well with the Hawks. Plus we had all that mojo from the second half of the regular season plus the 1st round. The biggest buzz kill ever was the game 6 ECF loss at MSA following Reggie's fourth quarter explosion in the Garden. What a season and post season! An energy around Indy that had never been experienced before.

                        There was a regular season game in the second half, once we started to get some steam going at the Bulls. Jordan was not playing that year, but the Bulls were still a formidable team with Pippen and Kukoc. We just waxed them up there and McKey was pilfering the ball left and right from Pippen. I just remember thinking there's something going on here.
                        Last edited by D-BONE; 02-16-2021, 07:06 PM.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Next best shot at a championship to 98 and 2000 (which of course was pure suffering) was the 2004 group. That was derailed by the Malice in the Palace. Sorry to junk up a feel good thread with that bunch.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                            Next best shot at a championship to 98 and 2000 (which of course was pure suffering) was the 2004 group. That was derailed by the Malice in the Palace. Sorry to junk up a feel good thread with that bunch.
                            03-04 was the 61 win season where we lost to Detroit in the ECF’s. 04-05 was the brawl year (ultimately Reggie’s last season).

                            03-04 was derailed by the Pistons getting Rasheed Wallace for basically nothing at the deadline, which is maybe the luckiest mid-season break ever for a contender. Can’t think of many other instances where a contender got such a good player at the deadline for almost nothing. Credit to Detroit for making that move, but something like that almost never happens. Pacers were 3-0 against Detroit that season before the trade. We were unquestionably better and would have made The Finals if not for Sheed. JO owned Detroit before Sheed, but Sheed unfortunately changed everything. He could defend JO perfectly and just gave that team a confident swagger. Not having Brad Miller haunted us because the Pistons could just smother JO when we had the ball.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-18-2021, 07:53 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If the 99 team hadn't thought they were anointed I think they would have taken it all.

                              Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X