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:
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

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

1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets



    Game Time Start: 9:00 PM ET
    Where: Pepsi Center, Denver, CO
    Officials: J. Capers, K. Fitzgerald, P. Fraher

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Denver Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / Altitude
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / 950 AM, 104.3 FM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you

    Away: 10-15
    West: 12-8
    Home: 17-3
    East: 7-7
    Jan 30
    Feb 01
    Feb 04
    Feb 05

    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)


    Pacers Try Hard to Lose then Try to Win for a Few Minutes, Accomplish the Former

    This was 46 minutes of sloppy offense and wet-cardboard defense from the Pacers.
    It was a very strange game overall. The Pacers actually shot really well, but couldn’t
    hold onto the ball. At one point in the third quarter, the Jazz had 16 steals to only 15
    rebounds. That’s not normal. And on the other end, the best defensive team in the
    NBA just got man-handled by Utah in the paint and allowed a ton of easy buckets.

    It’s hard to put the blame on any one person for such a strange funk that just seemed
    to pervade the entire fabric of the team. What is certain, however, is that the Pacers
    got out-worked and the Pacers got worked.

    Still, they somehow managed to make a game of this late. Paul George hit a three,
    David West hit a jumper, George Hill made a layup, and Indiana held Utah to just one
    point over the final 2:30 of regulation.

    The Jazz had the ball, up two, with little time left. It seemed as if the Pacers’
    comeback would come up short. Then Hill stole the ball, Indiana ran the same play
    the used to beat Memphis to tie the game (Paul George got fouled amid chaos after
    Utah shut off Hill’s drive) and then West made a huge steal of his own, taking the ball
    directly away from Gordon Hayward.


    I won’t bother to recount all the happenings. Mainly, the Pacers got destroyed in the
    half court and when they did stop the Jazz, the couldn’t finish the possession with a
    rebound. Earl Watson, in particular, was the first one to the ball — if not the last.
    Again, however, Paul George hit a big three, cutting a six-point Utah lead to three
    with thirty seconds left.

    The patient was on life support, but not dead.

    But the Jazz made a free throw to go up four so … good try, good effort.

    BUT WAIT … Hill rushed down the court and stuck a long three with two seconds left.
    It seemed meaningless. The Jazz merely needed to inbound the ball and the game
    was all but over. Maybe the Pacers get a very quick foul and the Jazz only hit one,
    which would have given them a chance to hit one more three with like a second left
    to send it to overtime.

    But as Utah inbounded the ball, it hit the side/bottom/back of the backboard.

    In my mind, that’s out of bounds. I saw this happen in JV basketball several times
    and it was always hilarious. I remember learning at a young age that you ALWAYS
    move over to the side of the lane before throwing the pass to avoid this exact
    scenario. Nobody wants to be laughed at so I was vigilant about it.

    Apparently, however, the refs...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Inside the Problem: A Breakdown of the Nuggets Turnovers

    When JaVale McGee is on the court he uses a big chunk of Denver’s possessions.
    According to, among regular rotation players, he has the
    highest usage rate on the team at 23.9 percent. Despite this, he also has the third
    lowest assist rate at 3.6 percent. Kosta Koufos has the second lowest, 3.1 percent,
    and Kenneth Faried the lowest assist rate, 2.0 percent. Naturally, all three of the
    Nuggets’ main frontcourt players earn their keep around the rim, finishing plays and
    putting back offensive boards, the big difference between McGee and the other two
    is that he actually spends a significant amount of time with the ball in his hands.

    As anyone who has followed the Nuggets this seasons knows, a couple things have
    plagued the team all season; inconsistency, a lack of perimeter shooting, and
    turnovers. I decided to look further into that turnover issue to see why the
    Nuggets continued to turn the ball over at such an alarming pace, 14.8 per game
    good for fifth worst in the league.

    To figure out what Denver’s problem was I decided to take a look at each turnover
    the Nuggets have committed all year via synergy and keep track of three factors;
    who committed the turnover, what kind of turnover was it, and was it a live or
    dead ball turnover.

    After tracking 667 turnovers (I must have missed a game somewhere but have no
    idea which) I did a bit of analysis of the numbers and found some interesting facts.

    I have attached the document as a link to a public google doc at the end of the post
    so readers can download it and look for themselves.

    Before I break down the things I saw first I want to list the categories I put the
    turnovers in and explain a few of them:

    Self Explanatory: 3 seconds, Bad Lobs, Bad Passes, Double Dribbles, Lane
    Violation, Fumbled Catches, Fumbled Shots, Offensive Interference, Inbound
    Violation, Missed Pass, Offensive Fouls (Both Charges and Illegal Screens went
    under this), Fall/Step Out of Bounds, Palming, Shot Clock Violations, Stepped Out
    of Bounds, Slipped Out of Hands, Stripped Shots, Travels.


    Andre Got Confused: There was one play where Andre Miller got into the lane and
    had no idea what to do. It resulted in him throwing the ball straight up into the air.
    I wasn’t sure whether or not to categorize it as a pass or shot so it went under
    Andre got confused.

    Bad Decision: Andre Iguodala got into the air and had no idea what to do leading
    to this turnover. Unlike most of the other ones that fit into a category simply this
    was another one that was up in the air so it went just as a bad decision.

    Dribbling: Plays that Nuggets players were stripped of their dribble, had the ball
    poked away from behind, or dribbled the ball off themselves and to an opponent
    or out of bounds.

    Stripped: Plays that the Nuggets were stripped off the ball after or before using
    their dribbles. Not on shots as that is its own category.

    Now onto the data:

    The Nuggets have committed almost every type of turnover imaginable. From 3
    seconds, to bad passes, to lane violations and palming the ball. If you can name
    it the Nuggets have probably done it.

    56 percent of the team’s turnovers are live ball turnovers. This number is part of
    why the turnovers have been such a problem for the Nuggets all year. A team
    can live with turnovers if the majority of them are dead ball turnovers. While no
    turnovers are good, dead ball turnovers eliminate run out opportunities and easy
    buckets for opponents. Unfortunately for the Nuggets that hasn’t been the case all
    season. Not only are the majority of turnovers live ball turnovers, but there have
    been plenty of live ball turnovers that have occurred on the opponent’s side of the
    floor. If this number doesn’t get below 50 percent the Nuggets are going to
    continue to lose games they shouldn’t, purely because they are giving up easy

    73 of Andre Miller’s 96 documented turnovers have been live ball turnovers.
    Andre’s lack of athleticism really hurts him as he continues to get into the lane and

    Matthew Zeitlin: Why We Watch - JaVale McGee, The Unexplainable

    If it seems like JaVale McGee is playing a different type of basketball than everyone
    else in the NBA, it's because he is. He's playing it the way he sees it.

    In 1974, the philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a groundbreaking essay, “What Is It
    Like To Be Bat.” He argued that the very difficulty of answering the question
    suggests that there must be something irreducibly extra-physical that generates
    the mental experience of being like something, which we call consciousness for
    short. Nagel’s argument, in brief, was that theories of the mind that tried to
    explain conscious experience as something reducible to different physical states
    of the brain (more or less), could not account for the feeling of being a conscious
    being. Nagel challenges the reader to think about bats, or more specifically, to
    think about being a bat. You could—and you might as well, there are worse
    hobbies—learn all there is to know about the physical laws governing a bat’s
    cognition, the circuitry of the bat-brain, the function of the bat’s sensory systems.
    But for all that knowledge, you will still be none the wiser when it comes to
    understanding the qualitative experience of batness.

    This all relates to JaVale McGee not simply because both he and bats are
    comfortable off the ground and broadly uncanny, although there’s that. It’s
    more that JaVale McGee presents a similar philosophical challenge: what might
    it be like to be JaVale McGee, to move around in that body, with that mind?

    Granted, figuring out what it’s like to be seven feet tall -- with arms that stretch
    another half a foot beyond that and a 32-inch vertical leap and an avant-garde
    brain—might be as difficult as imagining navigating through a dark cave with
    echolocation. It doesn’t necessarily help that the results of JaVale’s cognition can
    appear just as confounding and foreign. Running back on defense when your point
    guard is dribbling at the top of the key? Apparent innocent ignorance of the rules
    governing goaltending? You don’t need Andre Miller’s basketball IQ or Shane
    Battier’s extra-numerate savvy to figure that stuff out, right? And the details of
    McGee’s biography, while interesting, are not particularly useful in explaining the
    mystery of JaValeness; if anything, his family’s basketball-heavy bloodlines
    should have selected against just this airy cluelessness.

    But none of that, really, explains how JaVale McGee is JaVale Mcgee. He is his
    own creation, and lives in his own space in his own way. At times, it’s not clear
    that he quite knows what it’s like to be JaVale McGee, himself.

    JaVale is hardly the only extremely talented NBA player with a tendency to
    behave mysteriously on the court. But JaVale’s particular brand of blithe
    knuckleheadness diverges from the great Talented Headcase NBA archetype. Ron
    Artest has a psychology that’s multiply abnormal, but genuinely and meaningfully
    so; Royce White has an actual mental illness. JaVale isn’t violent or troubled or
    even apparently haunted so much as he’s just JaVale, his own weird self. In that
    sense, if maybe only in that sense, he’s just one of us.

    This is, actually, a remarkable thing. Because what would it do to someone, to
    anyone, to be born with a body and collection of physical gifts that essentially
    guaranteed a decade of employment in the NBA, no matter what? And moreover,
    what if that person could score simply by taking long strides around the basket and
    jumping higher into the air than anyone else? And as such could regularly send most
    shots near the rim into the stands? And if that person just enjoyed doing those things
    in a mostly uncomplicated way, and for good measure also had asthma? Or, more to
    this point, what if that person who is JaVale McGee was you. It is not necessarily any
    more difficult to imagine life as a bat.

    Let’s start with the first great JaVale moment, or in this case, series of moments. The
    triple-double. In a March game in 2011, the Wizards were down in the fourth quarter
    against the Bulls. Down by a lot, as it turns out; the Wiz would finish the season 23-49,
    while the Bulls would finish with the league’s best record and make it all the way to the
    Eastern Conference Finals.

    JaVale already had 12 rebounds and an astonishing 12 blocks, but only nine points with
    3:43 remaining the game. And so the JaVale Moment began, enfolding some very
    determined if not necessarily helpful fadeaway jumpers and off-balance leaners and
    attempts at taking his man off the dribble. Finally: a huge dunk, in traffic, from the
    beginning of the restricted area, and then immediately subsequent a technical for
    hanging on the rim and celebrating. An ESPN writer said McGee was “acting like a
    buffoon.” Kevin McHale called it a “bad triple-double.”

    “I got a triple-double,” was JaVale's response. “Who can say they got a triple-double?
    I’m not really worried about it.”

    His performance at the dunk-contest...CONTINUE READING AT THE CLASSICAL

    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows

    Benjamin Hochman @nuggetsnews
    Jeremy Wagner @RoundballMiner
    Aaron J. Lopez @Lopez_Nuggets
    Pierre @JaValeMcGee34
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

    I'd be OK with a loss here, so long as it's a loss where we just get outplayed, not one like the last one.


    • #3
      Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

      predict a loss. hope they prove me wrong like they did in memphis.


      • #4
        Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

        I'm just hoping for a Shaq'tin a Fool moment from Javele McGee tonight, but that's pretty much guaranteed.
        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

        ----------------- Reggie Miller


        • #5
          Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

          It's a very, very difficult arena to get a win in but we need a win today. We have to go 2 - 2 in this road trip.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.


          • #6
            Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

            We should win, but it is a road game so who knows.


            • #7
              Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

              Going to this game tonight, rocking the PG shirt! I don't care if they lose as long as they don't look lackadaisical. Go hard or go home, every night!

              go pacers!!!


              • #8
                Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                No Javale McGee () or Wilson Chandler tonight for the nuggets.
                There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.


                • #9
                  Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                  I feel way better knowing McGee or Chandler are out.


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                    Even if we lose, I want 48 minutes of focused effort. In other words, we need to compete.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                      G2 woohoo


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                        David West needs to score 72 points to guarantee himself that last All-Star spot.


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                          No Magee?
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                            We have earned 4 early fouls and I cannot help but think that this will bite us in the *** in the end of the game.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/28/2013 Game Thread #45: Pacers Vs. Nuggets

                              My FSN IN is really weird. It's Like a bad streaming video. Giving me a headache.