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

Ranking the game's best centers

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

    Ranking the game's best centers

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/4870666


    Ranking the game's best centers
    Story Tools: Print Email XML

    Mike Kahn / Special to FOXSports.com
    Posted: 11 minutes ago

    Too often the complaint has been there are so few pure centers in the NBA anymore.


    Really, how many have there ever been — at least those who were more than just thugs?

    To be sure, that's why so many teams have gone abroad to find 7-footers with large frames to bang inside. It almost reached epidemic proportions a couple of years ago.



    Mike Kahn's best
  • Power forwards | Small forwards
  • Shooting guards | Point guards



    • But as we rank the centers of the NBA today, the majority of them still were schooled in the game here and the definition of center continues to expand beyond just locking horns inside.

    Of course, there is nobody to compare to mammoth Shaquille O'Neal, who has been the preeminent pivot man ever since Hakeem Olajuwon retired. Because he is a 7-footer and well over 300 pounds with all the requisite skills, Shaq makes a game almost impossible to officiate. Consequently, defending him is mostly based on the attempt to force the ball out of his hands, unless a team can prevent him from getting the ball at all. His health has been an issue the past four seasons — he's missed an average of nearly 14 games a year ¹ and with his 34th birthday coming in March, that's not likely to change.

    Nonetheless, he is Shaq!

    Although there are a lot of detractors, Yao Ming's game continues to blossom, and with a year alongside Tracy McGrady under his belt, the versatile 7-foot-5 native of China will only get better this season. People forget he just turned 24 this week, so the Houston Rockets will always be contenders with this duo.

    Jumping high into the mix, even though he didn't even want to play center on the Phoenix Suns, is Amare Stoudamire, at the ripe age of 22. His extraordinary playoff performance, in which he averaged 29.9 points, 10.7 rebounds and 2.00 blocks, raised the eyebrows of everyone in and around the league.

    Because of his sheer size, Shaquille O'Neal is a force in the post. (D. Lippitt/Einstein/NBAE via / Getty Images)


    And as if Stoudemire isn't enough of an aberration for centers at 6-foot-10, 250 pounds, you have the two-time Eastern Conference champion Detroit Pistons' irrepressible Ben Wallace to contemplate. He's listed at 6-9, 240. Well, he definitely weighs at least 240 with his undying commitment to body-building, but few people believe he's taller than 6-8 and he still manages to body up every center in the league.

    So with all the 7-footers in this league, it speaks volumes that two of the top four really aren't even that close to the magic 7-foot mark, nor are they centers in the truest sense of the position.

    Sure, there are plenty more 7-footers — 7-foot-3 Zydrunas Ilgauskas is a wonderful scorer and has exceptional hands. The twin towers in Chicago, with 7-foot-1 Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, all 6-foot-11 and close to 300 pounds, there are two legitimate centers.

    Take a peek at young Samuel Dalembert, spindly Marcus Camby and various interiors skills of Jamaal Magloire, and you get varying degrees of defensive impact and board work.

    But when it comes down to ranking the centers, the only serious barometer is to give props to the unstoppable motor of Shaq Diesel as numero uno, then start the arguments comparing everyone else.

    1. Shaquille O'Neal, Miami Heat

    Ht./Wt.: 7-1, 325
    Numbers: 22.9 pts., 10.4 reb., 2.3 blk.
    There is no one like him in all of basketball, even at less than 100 percent. His size, strength, agility and strength are unparalleled today, and only Wilt Chamberlain is comparable in league history.

    2. Yao Ming, Houston Rockets

    Ht./Wt.: 7-5, 295
    Numbers: 18.3 pts., 8.4 reb., 2.0 blk.
    People expect too much from him, but his somewhat placid veneer makes him a finesse player. And how many other 7-5, 295-pounders are there to match up with him? None. So it really does make him a special player and he makes the Rockets always dangerous.

    3. Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix Suns

    Ht./Wt.: 6-10, 250
    Ht./Wt.: 26.0 pts., 8.9 reb., 1.63 blk.
    His extraordinary playoff performance catapulted him into the land of superstardom. Can he stay there? That's what we don't know. He improved so much, and is so quick, what he lacks in bulk and overall strength, he makes up for in quickness and explosiveness.

    What Amare Stoudemire lacks in strength, he makes up for with his quickness and explosiveness. (Andrew D. Bernstein / Getty Images)


    4. Ben Wallace, Detroit Pistons

    Ht./Wt.: 6-9, 240
    Numbers: 9.7 pts., 12.2 reb., 2.38 blk.
    He is just as unique as Shaq or Yao or Amare, if only because he is so undersized and yet takes over games with sheer will and energy and a general focus of grabbing every rebound, attempting to block every shot or steal every pass. Even his shooting improved last season because he worked so hard on it.

    5. Brad Miller, Sacramento Kings

    Ht./Wt.: 7-0, 260
    Numbers: 15.6 pts., 9.3 reb, 1.21 blk. As far as talent goes, he's right there with all of them. Sort of a latter day Bill Laimbeer without the fangs, he can shoot, pass and rebound extremely well. The liability — and it's a big one — is he can't seem to make it through any season without breaking down. It's always late in the year and it's why the Pacers let him go for the big bucks without a fight.

    6. Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Cleveland Cavaliers

    Ht./Wt.: 7-3, 260
    Numbers: 16.9 pts., 8.6 reb., 2.12 blk.
    Z has amazing hands and touch, making him always dangerous offensively and a good alternative in the offense to LeBron James. But his lack of mobility causes him to be erratic on the boards and defensively in the interior, and that has an adverse effect on the entire defense. Nonetheless, his offensive skills make him an All-Star.

    7. Marcus Camby, Denver Nuggets

    Ht./Wt. 6-11, 230
    Numbers: 10.3 pts., 10.0 reb., 3.02 blk.
    Perhaps the most underrated center in the game, what Camby lacks in strength and touch, he compensates for with energy. Carmelo Anthony is the future star, and others make contributions inside and outside. But Camby is the one who keeps the Nuggets whole with his defense, rebounding and ability to run on the break.

    Marcus Camby's defense and ability to get out and run on the break makes him valuable to the Nuggets. (Brian Bahr / Getty Images)


    8. Jamaal Magloire, New Orleans Hornets

    Ht./Wt.: 6-11, 260
    Numbers: 11.7 pts., 8.9 reb., 1.0 blk.
    He played in only 23 games last season due to a torn ligament in his hand, and then shortly after he returned in April, he missed eight more games with back spasms. It was a mess, as was the team. But he's a tough and improving interior player which is why there are always rumors about him being traded him

    9. Samuel Dalembert, Philadelphia 76ers

    Ht./Wt.: 6-11, 250
    Numbers: 8.2 pts., 7.5 reb., 1.68 blk.
    The 11.6 points, 12.8 rebounds and 1.4 blocks a game he averaged against the Pistons in the five playoff games last season earned him a $64 million contract. Is he worth it or will he always be an unfinished project? It's a rather expensive question, but the good news is he has a great attitude and work ethic, which should translate to him consistently improving.

    10. Tyson Chandler, Chicago Bulls

    Ht./Wt.: 7-1, 240
    Numbers: 8.0 pts., 9.7 reb., 1.76 blk.
    The less-refined talent of the twin towers that included Eddy Curry, Chandler has brought energy and unfailing work habits to be a great impact player off the bench on the defensive end. Because of the way he attacks the game, most expect the offense to come as time goes on. The real concern is what happens to Curry, with his undetermined heart issue, free agency status and weight problem. What we do know is it will only translate into more time for Chandler. Others receiver consideration: Eddy Curry, Chicago Bulls; Erick Dampier, Dallas Mavericks; Primoz Brezec, Charlotte Bobcats; Nenad Krstic, New Jersey Nets; Nazr Mohammed, San Antonio Spurs; Lorenzen Wright, Memphis Grizzlies; Chris Kamen, Los Angeles Clippers; Joel Przybilla, Portland Trail Blazers; Chris Mihm, Los Angeles Lakers. Veteran NBA writer Mike Kahn is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com




    No way I agree with Dalembert ranking above Peanut Butter. I'm sure Kegboy will agree. Hell Dalembert spent part of last season coming off the bench if I recall correctly.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Ranking the game's best centers

    While Yao maybe a true center there is no way he is better than Amare or Ben.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Ranking the game's best centers

      I posted all five of his articles, I can see several areas where I definitely disagree with his rankings....You just listed one of them.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Ranking the game's best centers

        Brad Miller #5

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Ranking the game's best centers

          Not that Foster is top 10, but look at the list of others who got consideration - Foster is better than most of those stiffs.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Ranking the game's best centers

            Originally posted by cariocapacer
            Not that Foster is top 10, but look at the list of others who got consideration - Foster is better than most of those stiffs.
            Didn't see that - pretty harsh. Not too suprising though, everyone always forgets that Foster exists.

            IndyToad
            Don't sign that contract

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Ranking the game's best centers

              5. Brad Miller, Sacramento Kings

              Ht./Wt.: 7-0, 260
              Numbers: 15.6 pts., 9.3 reb, 1.21 blk. As far as talent goes, he's right there with all of them. Sort of a latter day Bill Laimbeer without the fangs, he can shoot, pass and rebound extremely well. The liability — and it's a big one — is he can't seem to make it through any season without breaking down. It's always late in the year and it's why the Pacers let him go for the big bucks without a fight.
              Hmm...now where do you suppose he got that?






              That Mike Kahn. Always moving the goal post. :shakehead Actually, until I checked the link, I thought Gyron added that last bit as a joke.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                Shaq, Amare, Ben, Chow Main, Egg Rolls, Fried Rice yummy!
                http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                  Eddy Curry, Chicago Bulls;
                  Erick Dampier, Dallas Mavericks;
                  Primoz Brezec, Charlotte Bobcats;
                  Nenad Krstic, New Jersey Nets;
                  Nazr Mohammed, San Antonio Spurs;
                  Lorenzen Wright, Memphis Grizzlies;
                  Chris Kamen, Los Angeles Clippers;
                  Joel Przybilla, Portland Trail Blazers;
                  Chris Mihm, Los Angeles Lakers.
                  And no Foster? You kidding me?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                    Originally posted by Anthem
                    And no Foster? You kidding me?
                    It's a cryin' shame Oh well. They'll see.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                      No David Harrison?!?!

                      He'll be on there next year.
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                        Lorenzen Wright, Memphis Grizzlies; Chris Kamen, Los Angeles Clippers; Joel Przybilla, Portland Trail Blazers; Chris Mihm, Los Angeles Lakers. = Not Better then Foster

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                          Originally posted by Harmonica
                          Hmm...now where do you suppose he got that?






                          That Mike Kahn. Always moving the goal post. :shakehead Actually, until I checked the link, I thought Gyron added that last bit as a joke.
                          I only wish He would have left that door open for me.....But NO, Kahn had to go and do it himself......

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Ranking the game's best centers

                            Originally posted by Nino Brown
                            Lorenzen Wright, Memphis Grizzlies; Chris Kamen, Los Angeles Clippers; Joel Przybilla, Portland Trail Blazers; Chris Mihm, Los Angeles Lakers. = Not Better then Foster
                            I'd take it a little farther. Dalembert at 9 played more then Foster to ave. #'s that aren't as good. He may be a better center in the near future, but he's not now. Chandler is listed as a 4, and played most of his min. there. Neither Maglorie, or Chandler really have any better #'s then Jeff when you throw p.t. into it. With Maglorie you get a little more scoring, but give up about the same in rebounding. I'm not saying the Foster is a top 5 center, but to not list him in the top 20 is ridiculous. I haven't agreed with any of this writer's list.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Ranking the game's best centers



                              This is an absolutely horrible picture.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X