knocked turner back 5 feet with it on the last play, 1st sweep I've ever seen where I don't think the best team won, the McConnell unfortunate punch to the face kind of change some momentum also
Jason Tatum must have some stinking ass breathe
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
Winning comes down to close games. The Pacers built their team around a high scoring offense. They got farther than most expected, but they don't have the key players to win possession ball games.
the NBA has always and will always hate the Pacers! I’m happy I didnt even watch a second of these last 2 series! Such a scam! I wont waste my $ on a bad product anymore! Life's too short!
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Overall good season for the Pacers. They have something to build on.
1st sweep I’ve seen where the losing team looked like JV HS team. Congrats in getting this far, modern miracle.
Mavs likely to wipe the floor with the C’s. Doncic is in that mode right now
The Celtics were the superior team and it really wasn't close. I was rooting for the Pacers but they were just way out gunned. The fact that they made the games interesting is a feat in itself.
Except Hali got max and siakam likely to get max soon.
They unfortunately can't afford to keep the team together
Don't watch the NBA, but I watched the Knicks series and some of the Boston won.
The Pacers looked like a totally different team vs Boston. Against the Knicks, they were tough and made 3 point shots. Against Boston, they couldn't hit shots or even dribble the ball.
Very strange.
You can't win games when You turn the ball over 4 times in the last 2 minutes. This was a weird series. The Pacers were in position to win 3 of 4 games. They shot over 50% in the series. In game 3 , They outscored the Boston Bench by some huge amount, and if I read the box score correctly, Boston only got 3 points from their bench.
The problems? Too few Defensive stops, Gave up too many long Offensive Rebounds leading to second shots, No "Go To Guy" at the end of games (Halliburton's Absence didn't help). I'm not sure that it is time for them to move on from Myles Turner. he seems to disappear in big games and picks up some really stupid momentum killing Fouls.
….except that it was close. Removing the game three blowout, the other games were literally down to the wire. Had game one been closed out, the pacers/Celtics might’ve had a very different series.
Now, I’m not saying the pacers are better than the Celtics. The Celtics are the class of the eastern conference by a mile. I do think the pacers are better than where they finished in the standings. I base that on their having lost so many games to the basement dwellers this year. They are one of the youngest teams, and they will learn the value of regular season wins, and they’ll learn how to close out close playoff games. The next few years are going to be very good for the pacers.
Not strange at all. Boston is a much better team than the Knicks, who were depleted with injuries to key players.
Ahhh yes. The ol NBA hates the team I like argument. Always built on a solid foundation!
So you think there is no bias towards big markets big money teams? Think there is any bias towards big money players?
Hope and “bias” is totally different than “hating”. Sure the NBA is all for making money.
I dont think San Antonio is a major market team. How many years did they make the Finals? Milwaukee? Detroit?
The argument is lazy. The problem was the Pacers couldnt hit the broad side of a barn in clutch time.
Not sure how the league makes players miss open shots and turn the ball over.
More like calling a common foul on a clearly flagrant punch to the face, so the Boston player isn't kicked out.
Obviously the refs can't force an outcome but they can definitely nudge a desired outcome, especially over a 7 game series.
Missed call here and there and they can make it that much harder for the team they don't want. Exactly like how Big Ten refs TRY to protect teams in bowl/playoff contention by making sure any remotely toss up call goes in favor of the team that is better positioned to make the conference $$$$.
Has nothing to do with making players miss shots...that's just being over the top in trying to downplay how refs can effect games.
So you think without biased refs a Pacers team would have beaten the Celtics?
Its so easy to say when it doesn’t go your way.
But again, why would the league let San Antonio get the #1 pick with Tim Duncan and let a dynasty happen in a bottom 5 market?
Or why let Wemby go there?
Why would Zion end up in New Orleans when he was the next “star” in their minds?
Why would they let OKC get the 1 seed?
OKC Milwaukee and San Antonio are all smaller markets than Indy.
Again, it’s lazy and simply cherry picking isolated situations instead of looking at the entire picture.
Its so easy to say when it doesn’t go your way.
But again, why would the league let San Antonio get the #1 pick with Tim Duncan and let a dynasty happen in a bottom 5 market?
Or why let Wemby go there?
Why would Zion end up in New Orleans when he was the next “star” in their minds?
Why would they let OKC get the 1 seed?
OKC Milwaukee and San Antonio are all smaller markets than Indy.
Again, it’s lazy and simply cherry picking isolated situations instead of looking at the entire picture.
Probably not (especially with Haliburton out) but I don't think it would have been a sweep.
I think we would have beaten Knicks in 5 in a fair fight.
Sounds like you're picking isolated situations without looking at the big picture.
Huh? I just listed teams and situations over 30 years. You are complaining about a single series and a single team who, once again, choked down the clutch and couldn’t make shots.
Its a victim mentality and its weak.
Is the league just bad at screwing the other small market teams while also being really good at screwing Indy?
That team isn’t ready yet. They are in no way shape or form a better team than Boston right now. Enjoy your season and stop blaming everyone else.
Its a victim mentality and its weak.
Is the league just bad at screwing the other small market teams while also being really good at screwing Indy?
That team isn’t ready yet. They are in no way shape or form a better team than Boston right now. Enjoy your season and stop blaming everyone else.
Ok. Sure the refs can make a call here and there. But you know what? The Pacers had a million opportunities in the final 2 minutes of these games and didn’t convert.
One bad call in a game isn’t what makes a team lose.
nor 72 of them I am sure.
Of course, teams can play better to overcome the calls. That is true in all games. Doesn't mean they aren't fighting bias.
From the archives: How former ref Tim Donaghy conspired to fix NBA games
On the anniversary of Tim Donaghy's resignation from the NBA, ESPN revisits how the disgraced referee conspired to fix NBA games, whom he did it with and the untold millions that flowed from the conspiracy.
When a team is not making shots, turning the ball over, and not getting stops it leads to a smaller, slimmer margin of error.
I don't watch much NBA until the playoffs and I thought the Pacers were fun to watch for the most part. Most of the time they had great ball movement, lots of touches, and took good shots. I hate when teams have a player that holds the ball, dribble...dribble...dribble (Harden).
I don't watch much NBA until the playoffs and I thought the Pacers were fun to watch for the most part. Most of the time they had great ball movement, lots of touches, and took good shots. I hate when teams have a player that holds the ball, dribble...dribble...dribble (Harden).
Last edited:
Knicks shot 8 more FTs per game. Celtics shot 8.5 more per game. That’s a huge advantage in close games.
I don’t believe the fix is in for certain teams (small market vs big market), although of course, the NBA would prefer the largest amount of eyes and ears on the games.
When I think of the officiating, I think it’s generally poor, and always has been. It might seem worse these days, and I’m inclined to attribute that perception to replay technology getting better and better for us viewers to reassess the calls at home. Additionally, the rules for reviewing calls are currently flawed. There was a recent call where a ball seemingly went off a players hands and out of bounds. They reviewed the play, and discovered that the reason the ball went out of bounds is because the player was clearly fouled. But the current rules don’t allow fouls to be called while being reviewed, so the call was forced to stand, even though it was 100% wrong. That is complete bullshit and needs changing.
And while I don’t think the officiating is helping teams per se, I definitely believe the officials have been helping individual PLAYERS for decades. Earliest example I can recall was Jordan and his friendly whistle, which was legendary. Shaq and his being allowed to play *through* players, instead of around. I felt that was egregious with rules interpretations back then. Thankfully the NBA seems to have dialed back that interpretation.
Certain superstars are protected by the officials. The Celtic’s Brown clearly punched McConnell in the face, and that foul was the definition of a flagrant 1 foul. The call should’ve been obvious and upgraded upon review, but had they made that call, it would’ve meant Brown would be ejected based on his already having had a technical earlier, and they just can’t go ejecting stars for something that may not have been done “on purpose”. Selective enforcement of rules is wrong, and many people have noticed. Jeff VanGundy was fired by the NBA from announcing games because he was openly critical of the officiating. Reddick and Burke are experts at moving the conversation along so that fans don’t get hung up on the uneven whistles that protect the stars and keep them on the court.
When I think of the officiating, I think it’s generally poor, and always has been. It might seem worse these days, and I’m inclined to attribute that perception to replay technology getting better and better for us viewers to reassess the calls at home. Additionally, the rules for reviewing calls are currently flawed. There was a recent call where a ball seemingly went off a players hands and out of bounds. They reviewed the play, and discovered that the reason the ball went out of bounds is because the player was clearly fouled. But the current rules don’t allow fouls to be called while being reviewed, so the call was forced to stand, even though it was 100% wrong. That is complete bullshit and needs changing.
And while I don’t think the officiating is helping teams per se, I definitely believe the officials have been helping individual PLAYERS for decades. Earliest example I can recall was Jordan and his friendly whistle, which was legendary. Shaq and his being allowed to play *through* players, instead of around. I felt that was egregious with rules interpretations back then. Thankfully the NBA seems to have dialed back that interpretation.
Certain superstars are protected by the officials. The Celtic’s Brown clearly punched McConnell in the face, and that foul was the definition of a flagrant 1 foul. The call should’ve been obvious and upgraded upon review, but had they made that call, it would’ve meant Brown would be ejected based on his already having had a technical earlier, and they just can’t go ejecting stars for something that may not have been done “on purpose”. Selective enforcement of rules is wrong, and many people have noticed. Jeff VanGundy was fired by the NBA from announcing games because he was openly critical of the officiating. Reddick and Burke are experts at moving the conversation along so that fans don’t get hung up on the uneven whistles that protect the stars and keep them on the court.
Good points. Once the Pacers star players reach favored status by the higher ups in the NBA, they’ll get a bunch of calls they don’t currently get. I was astonished by how many times they drove to the basket and seemed to get fouled 2-3 times on the way with rarely a call. Both Knicks and Celtics stars seemed to get an automatic call - especially if they missed the shot.
One tech and one flagrant 1 don’t equal ejection. 2 of either does.
Just like when kicking the ball was falsely called and it wasn't reviewable. Anything should be reviewable.
Of course, when they blow the whistle and call double dribble on another play that was supposed to not be reviewable, they change it anyway and claim inadvertent whistle and apparently inadvertent double dribble hand motion.
Between having some stuff be reviewable and other stuff non-reviewable and the inability for refs to understand what a travel is, makes watching the NBA very frustrating.
Of course, when they blow the whistle and call double dribble on another play that was supposed to not be reviewable, they change it anyway and claim inadvertent whistle and apparently inadvertent double dribble hand motion.
Between having some stuff be reviewable and other stuff non-reviewable and the inability for refs to understand what a travel is, makes watching the NBA very frustrating.
It’s exactly that kind of slanted officiating that any casual observer can understand immediately. It happens waaaay too often for it not to be intentional.
To the OPs note, the 2004 sweep of the 105-game winning Cardinals by the wild card Red Sox is one instance of a lesser team sweeping a better team.
Of the Celtics series, I only watched the last 3 minutes of game 1, so I blame myself for the loss.
Again, the NBA is to the sport of basketball as the WWE is to the sport of wrestling. So, enjoy the entertainment, but don't get too upset if the ref allows one side to use a folding chair or two.
Of the Celtics series, I only watched the last 3 minutes of game 1, so I blame myself for the loss.
Again, the NBA is to the sport of basketball as the WWE is to the sport of wrestling. So, enjoy the entertainment, but don't get too upset if the ref allows one side to use a folding chair or two.
If you don't see Boston as the much better team, then not much else can be said.
"Much" isn't the word most people would use to describe a team that wins 3 out 4 by 1 or 2 points, the last two of which over a team without its best player. The Celtics were better in crunch time, when it matters, which comes from having gone through more postseason battles. They weren't *much* better, or they would've rolled the Pacers every game, especially without Haliburton. The Pacers have enough talent to roll out the same roster next year, with a healthy Mathurin and Haliburton, to contend for a title, with the experience they've now accrued.
As for this year, I don't see the Boston doing anything with the Mavs, with the way that they're rolling. The Celtics have faced three straight teams that were missing their star players, some teams missing more than one, for several if not all of the games in each series. They've had it easier than any Finals participant in memory.
I call bullshit, they were allowed to push off on offense, trailed every game late into the 4th quarter, pacers were the better team, in fairness a healthy knicks team would be in the finals
Perfect response to an utterly stupid take. And I hope Luka’s boys curbstomp them.
you are correct, haven't seen enough of Boston without Porzingis to know how much better he makes them ,
Laughable. Thanks for clearing up your NBA knowledge if you think the Pacers were the better team.
The only player that could start on a healthy Boston team is maybe Haliburton.
“….maybe Haliburton”. Now you sound laughable.
Similar threads
