IC Cold LInks: Pacers Dig In To Finish Off Win Over Nets

by Tom Lewis on Feb 17, 2012 9:01 AM EST in Indiana Pacers News

The aesthetic beauty of an NBA win is vastly overrated and after losing five consecutive games the Indiana Pacers were more than happy to notch a win over the New Jersey Nets that had a great personality but wasn't much to look at otherwise.

After a sluggish start, the Pacers returned to a formula that has worked in their favor for several wins this season, improving at the defensive end while having bursts of solid offense among an overall inefficient night. Paul George made life difficult for Deron Williams in the second half which allowed the Pacers to gin of some offense and Danny Granger led the way, scoring half of his 32 points to finish off the Nets and hold on for the win.

Mike Wells reports today that the Pacers came together to work through some internal issues and now this win allows them a chance to exhale, get back to work and continue building up with a few more winnable games before the All-Star break.

Check out Mike's story and plenty more in the links after the jump.+

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ugh

Every time I read a Bob Kravitz column I’m again reminded of why I chose not to re-up my Star subscription several years back. Most writers have a “thing.” They’re edgy (Whitlock) or they’re goofy (Reilly) or they’re not afraid to cuss and make obscure references to their personal lives that you don’t care about (Simmons). Bob’s “thing” is that he’s a fossil who’s terrified of new media. Good for him.

"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"

Now writing pro bono for alwaysmillertime.com

by LukeNukem on Feb 17, 2012 11:39 AM EST reply actions

Don't mind his columns, it's the radio/tv...

Just like with Whitlock or Reilly, their columns are pretty good. Simmons will have you rolling, too. But it’s when I hear these guys start to talk live on radio or TV, I just can’t take it. On paper, their allowed to think things through, edit, re-draft, and make changes, which helps them to sound less jerkish and overbearing. But live spots don’t afford them that same opportunity, and they’ll say things that’s just make me cringe and question their intelligence, you know those “Did he really just say that?” or “Is this guy serious?” moments.

Every major media outlet has at least one “That Guy” who’s edgy and can come across as a complete caricature of even themselves. But it’s a necessary evil, and I find them entertaining, in a laughable sort of way, like, “You’re completely nuts, but you’re entitled to your quirky, sometimes stupid, uninformed opinion” way. That’s just me, tho.

by abeas1 on Feb 17, 2012 3:30 PM EST up reply actions

No, I totally agree that the dynamic is necessary

I understand that columnists have to be unique and edgy and have their own signature move. It’s just that Kravitz’s signature move is to slowly get out of his easy chair, shuffle to the front porch and yell at the kids playing in his yard. I think it’s shockingly ironic that the Star’s “big name” columnist, who’s supposed to be cutting edge (because this is a paper from a major city, right?) is the antithesis of cutting edge, based on his continuous crusade against people who don’t get paid to be journalist. News flash (no pun intended): There’s a reason journalists don’t get paid that much. Trust me, I know. I got out of the business because of it. Shh…don’t tell Bob…it’s not that hard, especially when you’re tossed alley-oops from Peyton Manning.

"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"

Now writing pro bono for alwaysmillertime.com

by LukeNukem on Feb 17, 2012 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

To me...

Bob’s thing seems to be the use of his media credentials to get inside information which he then proceeds to distort in a biased manner that more satisfactorily suits personal view of the situation. He then writes up the warped viewpoint as though it were fact rather than opinion and tries to get the fan base riled up against the very teams he covers. Then, he never lets readers forget those opinions that were correct and never again mentions the many that were not. In technological terms, Bob is a shit stirrer.

Does it surprise anyone that the Edge refused to speak to him for years?

by Manfred James on Feb 18, 2012 10:19 AM EST up reply actions