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

We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

    (1) Indiana Pacers vs. (8) Milwaukee Bucks

    Last Playoff Meeting: 1999 Eastern Conference First Round (Indiana won 3-0)

    April 23 - Milwaukee Bucks 85, Indiana Pacers 88
    Conseco Fieldhouse, Indianapolis

    April 27 - Milwaukee Bucks 104, Indiana Pacers 91
    Conseco Fieldhouse, Indianapolis

    April 29 - Indiana Pacers 109, Milwaukee Bucks 96
    Bradley Center, Milwaukee

    May 1 - Indiana Pacers 87, Milwaukee Bucks 100
    Bradley Center, Milwaukee

    May 4 - Milwaukee Bucks 95, Indiana Pacers 96
    Indiana wins series, 3-2

    More similarities:

    1. That team finished the season with a 56-26 record and came into the Playoffs with the expectation of advancing to the Finals.

    2. They were playing the Bucks, a team they eliminated in the first round the previous year.

    3. The Bucks barely made the playoffs as an 8-seed but they finished the season by stringing together some big wins to clinch their berth.

    3. The Bucks shot a lot of three-pointers and were an excellent passing team.

    4. The younger and much quicker Bucks guards and forwards ran circles around the slower Pacers on the offensive end.

    5. The Pacers were blown out by the Bucks at home and in one of the games on the road.

    6. A stretch 4/5 player (Scott Williams) made life miserable for the Pacers by knocking down shots from the perimeter and forcing the big men to play further away from the basket. In game 4 he hit 4 jumpers in a row because Dale Davis was reluctant to guard him that far from the basket. He finished with 20 points that game.

    7. The Pacers center, Rik Smits, struggled in most of the games defensively of that series because of the Bucks shooting. He also couldn't rebound against them.

    8. The Pacers back up power forward (Austin Croshere) had a good series because of the smaller matchups and quicker pace.

    9. Larry Bird was out coached by George Karl for most of the series and was reluctant to make changes to his lineup while Karl made several adjustments to create mismatches for the Pacers.

    10. Pacers fans were freaking out because there was a good chance the Pacers could be eliminated from the playoffs after having such high expectations.



    That series was nerve-wracking! I have never been that nervous about an 8-seed before. The Pacers barely won the series clinching game (it took a made 3-pointer with 4 seconds left to win by 1 point) and it looked like it was going to be one of the biggest upset and collapse in NBA History.

    I loved the results of that series. The Pacers went on to play much better in the second round against the Sixers and in the Conference Finals against the Knicks. They advanced to the NBA Finals but that first round was very troubling.

    This Atlanta team is bringing back a lot of those same feelings but I'm not as nervous as I was then. The reasons are because the Pacers just aren't making shots and we know they have the ability to make shots against this team. I still believe that Roy is going to eventually have a good game but even if it doesn't, the Pacers only need 3 players to beat this Hawks team. The officiating in last night's game was terrible and it effected the outcome.

    The refs aren't the reason the Pacers lost but if they hadn't called out-of-bounds against Lance or if they called out-of-bounds on Jeff Teague, that's 7 points that the Hawks don't put on the board to take such a big league when the game was still close. I don't think it will be as bad in games 4 and 5 and I expect the Pacers to make more of the layups they missed in that game or at least receive more foul calls than they got last night.

    Either way, this isn't as shocking as that 2000 series was. At least not to me. I'm still confident that the Pacers will win this series. I wasn't very confident that they would beat the Bucks, which was way better than this Hawks team, back in 2000.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

    I was thinking about this series last night as I watched, I also remember how stubborn Larry was with his rotations and now Vogel is making exactly the same mistakes. Those mistakes cost us a chance of winning that year. I really believe that leaving Foster off the playoff roster and his refusal to play Mully until they were completely blown out by the Lakers cost us big and now Vogel is doing the same with Copeland.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

      Obvious difference, Pacers lead 1-0 and 2-1 in that series.


      Comment

      • #4
        Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

        That Pacers team didn't collapse down the stretch though so even though it was a tough series, you didn't have other worries about the team except for the matchup alone.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

          This makes me hold out a little hope, but I don't think we have the veteran experience of that team.


          @Pacers24Colts12

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

            I remember that series. Milwaukee was one of the more talented 8 seeds I had ever seen.

            This hawks team.....isn't.

            That series was more about how well the bucks played. This series has been mostly about how awful the pacers have played.
            Last edited by Kstat; 04-25-2014, 10:34 AM.

            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

            • #7
              Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

              It's not like the Pacers were playing poorly that series. The Bucks were really quite good and talented. This team has just collapsed
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                I think it's a valid comparison.

                However... the team who goes up 2-1 in a series wins the series like 85% of the time. That 2000 Indy team was the one with the 2-1 lead. I don't think we're "out" of it yet, but we are not in a good position. We have to win 3 of the last 4. If we lose tomorrow, we gotta win out the series.

                This is about as negative as I've been. It's just the reality of it. Going down 2-1 is usually not a good thing. If Indy would just remember to play that lock-down defense and rebound, they'd win almost every game. But they forget, for some stupid reason. They start focusing on offense, which they aren't very good at it. They need to focus on their strengths and then keep doing it. They remembered it in game 2, and then forgot about it again the next game. Silliness. No team will beat them if they play the type of defense that they are capable of playing.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                  Also, this has been a weird playoffs. Indy isn't the only team not playing well. Who'da thunk that Chicago would be down 0-2 to the Wizards? Talk about a massive let-down. Couldn't have happened to a better fan base.

                  OKC with the MVP is against the ropes against a very under-rated and peaking Grizz team. Not looking good there. I wouldn't have guessed that Houston would be down 0-2 to Portland. A split at best.

                  It wouldn't shock me if SA went down to Dallas and lost again to go down 1-2 in that series.

                  It's just an upside-down playoffs this year.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                    I think Indy needs to do the following:

                    - Mahinmi should start and Hibbert needs to come off the bench.
                    - I'm seriously wondering if CJ Watson isn't a better PG *and* overall player than George Hill. I'd be okay seeing CJ get the start for the rest of the series with Hill joining Hibbert off the bench.
                    - Paul George needs to be glued to Teague at all times. He needs to go back to PG vs Rose mode in years past, where he forgets about offense and just focuses on disrupting the fast lil **** who keeps breaking our defense down.

                    It's three simple moves, and I think we take the series if it happens.

                    And then Vogel needs to a broken record in the huddle emphasizing defense and rebounding... defense and rebounding... defense and rebounding... defense and rebounding... defense and rebounding...
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-25-2014, 10:52 AM.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      I remember that series. Milwaukee was one of the more talented 8 seeds I had ever seen.

                      This hawks team.....isn't.

                      That series was more about how well the bucks played. This series has been mostly about how awful the pacers have played.
                      I don't know about that. The Pacers played really bad at times during that 2000 series. They got absolutely nothing from several players in their 2 losses.

                      Here's the boxscore and recap from game 2 where they were blown out early due to horrible defense and their inability to hit any shots: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...04/27/ind_mil/
                      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...04/27/ind_mil/


                      Here's the boxscore and recap from game 4. The Pacers were beat even worse this game:

                      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...05/01/mil_ind/
                      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...05/01/mil_ind/
                      Last edited by naptownmenace; 04-25-2014, 11:53 AM. Reason: Edited game number from 2 to 4 to keep down the confusion

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                        I don't know about that. The Pacers played really bad at times during that 2000 series. They got absolutely nothing from several players in their 2 losses.

                        Here's the boxscore and recap from game 2 where they were blown out early due to horrible defense and their inability to hit any shots: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...04/27/ind_mil/
                        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...04/27/ind_mil/


                        Here's the boxscore and recap from game 3. The Pacers were beat even worse this game:

                        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...05/01/mil_ind/
                        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...05/01/mil_ind/

                        Here's the boxscore from Game 3
                        that's game 4. As was stated already, the Pacers never trailed that series at any point.

                        Jalen and Reggie ate the Bucks alive in game 3. 61 points on 24/41 shooting.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 04-25-2014, 11:09 AM.

                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                          Was that the series Reggie and Jalen both hit 40 in the same game?

                          [EDIT] Nope, was the very next series against the Sixers: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...005060IND.html Man Smits had some bad box scores that year, lol... too familiar.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-25-2014, 11:15 AM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            Was that series that Reggie and Jalen both hit 40 in the same game?
                            No, that was Philly in the next series.

                            Struggling with an 8 seed is never good, but that Bucks team was talented and went to Game 7 of the ECF's the next season. Allen, Big Dawg, and Cassell were very good players. Their role players were good too. I don't think Atlanta is very good at all. They will get slaughtered if they make it past us. We're just that bad right now.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: We've Seen the Pacers struggle against an 8 seed before - in the year 2000

                              Travis Best is not walking through that door.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X