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

12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

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

  • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Why can't we manage to get the ball to Roy when he is fronted in the post? We either turn it over or don't bother because we're afraid of a turnover. Anyone know if there is a move Roy needs to work that can help him shift a man so he can be in position to get the ball? In other words, the offense WANTS to get the ball to Roy but the passing lanes are cut off.
    Move the entry pass angle from the wing to the elbow, which they do, but not effectively and the defense plays for it.

    Skip pass to reverse the ball, which they try to do, but not effectively and the defense plays for it.

    Break down your defender from the wing and create basically a 2 on 1 mini advantage. They don't do this.

    Have Roy post farther away from the basket, once fronted, to therefore bring the fronting defender farther away, which changes the angle to something better and grossly puts the defender out of position. They don't do this and I'm not sure Roy is strong enough or quick enough to manage this without the defender getting back behind him.

    Shoot a jumper with Roy being fronted, basically giving him inside position for the offensive board. Doesn't happen.

    Have the weak side player flash to the high post when his man is waiting to double Roy. Creates a 15 foot easy shot. Dunleavy does this.

    I'm giving all these examples, but it comes down to the other 4 players on the floor being active and being quick/smart at recognition.

    Ideally fronting a guy with a weak side double should be what you want, it creates an open man by the very nature of it. You should be able to exploit it to the point that teams won't do it, ever. Again, its a mini fast break waiting to happen.

    I always say mini fast break, but really I just mean if two guys are dedicated to stopping Roy and are out of position doing so, you have a 4 on 3 advantage on the rest of the court.

    Never should a Jon Brockman be able to be in the game on Roy, but we see it over and over from teams lately because the Pacers can't exploit it.

    I'm thinking they'll clean this up, it's basic basketball. It just takes a team effort and understanding (symbiotic type thing)

    I'm hoping at some point Roy loves the idea of being fronted and makes the defender stay out there, out of position. Now, he just looks confused when it happens.
    Last edited by Speed; 12-09-2010, 10:39 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

      Some of you are making this sound like that was the greatest pass in the history of the NBA or something, when in reality it is a pass and play that any team with even a halfway competent player over 6'8" has in their arsenal.

      It was a great pass sure, but it was definitely not indefensible. There were plenty of ways to bat that ball without tipping it into the hoop. Even jumping up and punching the ball as hard as you could would have accomplished that.

      The fact is Foster didn't jump, at all, to defend it. He just ran aside Bogut and hoped being in front of him would be enough. If he had jumped all he had to do was literally hit the ball as hard as he could in any direction really to ruin the play.


      Comment


      • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        That doesn't make JOB the worst coach in the history of anything involving a sphere,
        He definitely is the worst coach in the blogosphere.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Some of you are making this sound like that was the greatest pass in the history of the NBA or something, when in reality it is a pass and play that any team with even a halfway competent player over 6'8" has in their arsenal.

          It was a great pass sure, but it was definitely not indefensible. There were plenty of ways to bat that ball without tipping it into the hoop. Even jumping up and punching the ball as hard as you could would have accomplished that.

          The fact is Foster didn't jump, at all, to defend it. He just ran aside Bogut and hoped being in front of him would be enough. If he had jumped all he had to do was literally hit the ball as hard as he could in any direction really to ruin the play.
          Jeff was trying to in effect block Bogut out - push him, keep him away from the basket - which is the way to play it, but it is almost impossible to block out, push a guy and jump at the same time. What you have to do is block out push and then jump - looked like Jeff didn't have time to make the transition between blocking out and jumping.

          But the placement of the pass and the timing was incredible. it was a perfect pass. as I think I mentioned earlier that exact play breaks down 80% of the time because the pass is off either location or timing.

          Does anyone know a way to pull up a dozen or dozens of end of game plays like that. I would love to see 20-30 of those and just see why they only work about 1% of the time

          Anyone remember the wide open shot that David West got against us several years ago - i think carlisle was the coach - West missed it though - the game was in N.O.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-09-2010, 10:47 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            Unfreakingbelievable. Any defender capable of getting to the ball could have easily made a play to keep it from going in. Do you even know how hard it is to tip that in regardless of how good the pass was? It required extraordinarily soft hands by Bogut to score that. A good play on his part, and an amazing pass by M'bah A Moute, but not so amazing that no human being could keep it out of the net. That is ridiculous. This is a really, really bad argument you are making.
            Fair enough, I just saw how close that ball ended up to the basket and was thinking how hard it would be to get a hand in there that wouldn't have been a foul or even seen as a goaltend if after Bogut deflects it.

            I can buy that someone who jumps quicker than Bogut can get to the ball first, which is obviously an improvement.

            I'm not sure we aren't lamenting a different reason Bogut gets to the ball if we see Josh or Tyler there, but the differences between them and Jeff are clearer now.
            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


            • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

              That is not the only way to play it UB, especially if you have the inside position. If Jeff had jumped to go after the ball, they would not have called a foul on him. He had the inside position! Josh out jumps Bogut for that ball, not a doubt in my mind. Especially if he has inside position.

              Like I said and you just said, all Jeff did was try to put his body between Bogut and the ball which is not enough. Especially when the guy is bigger than you.

              You said Jeff didn't have the time to make the transition between blocking out and jumping? Gee, wonder why, could it be because he is not capable of doing that anymore?

              It's a pity we don't have a 6'10" off the charts athletic PF to put out there....


              Comment


              • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                The fact is Foster didn't jump, at all, to defend it. He just ran aside Bogut and hoped being in front of him would be enough. If he had jumped all he had to do was literally hit the ball as hard as he could in any direction really to ruin the play.
                He didn't jump because he didn't see it, didn't track the ball. He was where he needed to be, he needed quicker recognition.

                The argument is you put your veteran guy in there who understands what is going on and more quickly recognizes the instance. Didn't happen, so it's a fail.

                Not sure Josh would have shown more savvy than a Jeff Foster in that situation, but I doubt it. Easy to second guess now.

                If in an alternate reality Josh was in, instead, fouled Bogut or got caught in the screen or (like Jeff) didn't see the pass quick enough, or even tipped it in himself...the conversation we'd be having now is why don't you put Jeff in there who has the experience and understanding to make a play. Jeff being in was the right call or maybe I guess I'd say, at the very least, it wasn't a grossly wrong call by Obie like some are painting it as.

                Game wasn't lost on that play, anyway.
                Last edited by Speed; 12-09-2010, 10:49 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Jeff was trying to in effect block Bogut out - push him, keep him away from the basket - which is the way to play it, but it is almost impossible to block out, push a guy and jump at the same time. What you have to do is block out push and then jump - looked like Jeff didn't have time to make the transition between blocking out and jumping.

                  But the placement of the pass and the timing was incredible. it was a perfect pass. as I think I mentioned earlier that exact play breaks down 80% of the time because the pass is off either location or timing.
                  That is not at all how you should defend that play. That is only how you defend that play if you are an old man with a bad back that doesn't allow you to defend it.

                  Bad coaching led to the bad execution. It isn't Foster's fault, I feel bad for him, he never should have been in.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    He didn't jump because he didn't see it, didn't track the ball. He was where he needed to be, he needed quicker recognition.

                    The argument is you put your veteran guy in there who understands what is going on and more quickly recognizes the instance. Didn't happen, so it's a fail.

                    Not sure Josh would have shown more savvy than a Jeff Foster in that situation, but I doubt it. Easy to second guess now.

                    If in an alternate reality Josh was in, instead, fouled Bogut or got caught in the screen or (like Jeff) didn't see the pass quick enough, or even tipped it in himself...the conversation we'd be having now is why don't you put Jeff in there who has the experience and understanding to make a play. Jeff being in was the right call or maybe I guess I'd say, at the very least, it wasn't a grossly wrong call by Obie like some are painting it as.
                    We absolutely would not be having that conversation.

                    We would be saying "well at least our 23 year old PF made that mistake and can learn from it." Instead we're saying, "our 34 year old PF screwed it up, and probably will retire at the end of the season. Thank God he has that experience!"


                    Comment


                    • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Did I miss something? Foster was right between Bogut and the basket. Bogut wasn't wide open, and Foster was facing the basket. Bogut moved him forward a bit just before the pass while Jeff was trying to box him out, but that doesn't equate to being fooled or out of position.

                      The tip-in happens because Bogut gets over Foster and, if Foster put a hand up to tip the ball, it is at such an angle it could have ended up an "own goal" or even a foul. The placement of the pass was beautiful.
                      All Foster had to do was swat the ball...in any direction, and the clock would have ended

                      you would expect that from a vetern like Foster. If that were Hans or McRoberts, they probably would have made an attempt to steal the ball...
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                        Originally posted by DaveP63 View Post

                        Why isn't Tyler playing? According to Jim, he's still a rookie. According to Jim it takes 3 years to grasp the nuances of his system.

                        Well, I guess that means only those players that were here when Jimmy was hired, such as Granger, Dunleavy, and Foster, grasp the nuances of his system while everyone else is 1 to 3 years away of being able to grasp his system. I guess Foster hasn't quite gotten those nuances down yet either.

                        That statement tells me that Jimmy has a system that players find difficult to grasp and doesn't fit the players. Darn, I sure hope Bird doesn't trade for some Allstar player, b/c they won't be able to grasp the nuances of Jimmy's system for 3 years! It's this type of BS from Jimmy that just sends me over the edge. I am trying to give the man a chance this year, but it's carp like this that makes it really difficult for me to forget the past THREE years of his BS statements and losing ways. B/c of his statements and what I deem is his attitude from tv interviews, I percieve him as a person who sees himself more intelligent than others and looks down upon those that he deems not his equal with distain. I personally can't stand that type of a person. I never have, I never will.

                        I have NEVER advocated firing O'Brien, but I'm all for the end of his not coaching the Pacers. I still content Bird picking up Jimmy's 4th year was a major blunder. There were coaches available to have replaced O'Brien such as Monty Williams who I felt would be a good choice. There were others as well like Scott and Tom T. It's getting to the point I just can't stand Jimmy even as much as I'm trying to give him a chance.

                        My 1st thought watching the disasterous 1st qtr of the Pacers being beat on the boards where they gave up "double didgit" offensive rebounds was why not put Tyler in to let him try to turn the tide. The Bucks players were rebounding just like Tyler does. How about fighting fire with fire? I never liked Bird's decision to draft Tyler, but he definately brings certain attributes to the table and his fierceness as a competitor and rebounder was what was needed at the time. Just how was Posey to stop the rebounding of the Bucks? It's not his forte, shooting 3's is. This game wasn't lost with the heroic shot of Bogut, it was lost in the 1st half by the play of the Bucks and lack of play by the Pacers. The 1st half was one of those times when Jimmy should have used Tyler to try and stop the Bucks superior rebounding. What was there to lose by putting Tyler in the game?

                        Dadgumit Jimmy use the ASSETS that Bird gave you at the appropriate times.

                        End of rant.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                          I see real signs that the "cycle of failure" is coming to an end.

                          We'll see in the games in the next 15 days or so. I wouldn't count on putting too much faith in it's coming to an end.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            We absolutely would not be having that conversation.

                            We would be saying "well at least our 23 year old PF made that mistake and can learn from it." Instead we're saying, "our 34 year old PF screwed it up, and probably will retire at the end of the season. Thank God he has that experience!"
                            Josh getting experience would be exactly why I'd want him in, in that situation.

                            However, if you want to maximize winning that play and maybe winning that game in OT. Jeff was the right choice from a coaching perspective, imo.

                            If development/learning experience was the goal then I'd maybe have put Lance in there too to guard Jennings (exaggerated for effect)

                            Comment


                            • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              We'll see in the games in the next 15 days or so. I wouldn't count on putting too much faith in it's coming to an end.
                              Simple question - if the pacers win 42 games this year - a 10 game improvement - would you consider that "losing coming to an end. (because I think the pasers will win 42 or 43 games. A 10 game improvment will mean the pacers are probably in top 3 for most improved in the NBA)

                              Comment


                              • Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                                @ Speed Yes, that is exaggerated. You're acting like Josh has not shown the ability to be a competent defender.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X