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

Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

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

    Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/061213
    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2


    When my Clippers season tickets arrive every October, I grab the accompanying schedule, head over to our kitchen calendar and write down the following nine teams and their corresponding dates on the schedule:
    CELTS, CAVS, SUNS, SPURS, MAVS, LAKERS, MIAMI, MINNESOTA, PHILLY.


    Those are the only must-see Clipper opponents for me. Two of the teams are self-explanatory: Boston (my favorite team) and Cleveland (LeBron, who's worth seeing even if he might coast through the game). The other seven teams feature players who can't be fully appreciated until you see them live: Duncan (the consummate pro), Dirk (one of a kind), KG (criminally intense), Kobe (the best scorer alive), Nash (the perfect offensive point guard), Wade (the closest thing to MJ since MJ) and Iverson (for reasons about to be explained).
    With those seven players, your ticket guarantees you a professional, first-class performance, no different than reservations at a particularly good restaurant or hotel. They always deliver the goods. Always. Now it looks like one of them might be switching teams: Iverson, the relentless Philly scorer who could be shipped out of town as soon as today. Three Saturdays ago, I watched him finish 12-for-31 in an overtime loss to the Clips, hampered by Quinton Ross' defense and an atrocious group of teammates who couldn't assume any of the scoring burden. You could tell it was only a matter of time. He was going to snap at some point.
    Know what else? He still played his *** off. Breathtaking to watch as always, Iverson remains the quickest guard on the planet, one of the few who routinely draws "oohs and ahhs" from the Staples Center crowd. Although he's noticeably smaller in person (no taller than 5-foot-11), Iverson attacks the basket in waves, almost like an undersized running back ramming into the line of scrimmage for four or five yards a pop (think Emmitt Smith). He takes implausible angles on his drives -- angles that can't be seen as they're unfolding, even if you've been watching him for 10 years -- and drains an obscene number of layups and floaters in traffic. And he still plays with a "f--- you!" intensity that only KG and Kobe can match (although MJ remains the king of this category). There isn't a more intimidating player in the league.
    Yup, even after 10 punishing seasons, even on an off-night slumming for a crappy team, Allen Iverson is still worth seeing. And now that he's about to be traded -- about six months too late, by the way -- I've been astonished by the lack of respect for his abilities in so many written and spoken reports. Writers and talking heads keep painting Iverson as a past-his-prime, banged-up head case who can't guard anyone, a significant risk with sizable baggage, someone who's too selfish to coexist with quality players. There's a generational twinge to the anti-Iverson coverage, pushed by media folks in their 40s, 50s and 60s who can't understand his generation and don't seem interested in trying. Most media members would rather mention his infamous aversion to practice (overrated over the years) above describing the incredible thrill of seeing him in person.
    Well, ask yourself one question: How could a coach-killer who allegedly monopolizes the ball, hates to practice and can't sublimate his game double as one of the most revered, respected players in the league? Why did the ex-players on "NBA Coast To Coast" (Anthony, Legler and Barry) trade Iverson war stories last night like they were trading stories about Keyser Söze? Why are Philly fans overwhelmingly heartbroken that he's leaving town? How can anyone blame Iverson for anything when he's been saddled with an incompetent front office and decidedly mediocre supporting cast for the past decade?
    Consider the following:
    Fact: He played with only one All-Star in Philly (the soon-to-be-decrepit Dikembe Mutombo in 2001), as well as a host of overpaid role players (Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Kyle Korver, Kenny Thomas, Marc Jackson, Brian Skinner, Greg Buckner, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch, Corliss Williamson, Theo Ratliff), overpaid underachievers (Derrick Coleman, Keith Van Horn, Sam Dalembert, Joe Smith), overpaid and washed-up veterans (Todd MacCulloch, Toni Kukoc, Chris Webber, Glenn Robinson, Matt Geiger, Billy Owens), and underachieving lottery picks (Jerry Stackhouse, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes).
    Fact: Other than Mutombo, Iverson's four best teammates were Coleman (the signature head case of the 1990s), Stackhouse (a selfish scorer who's been traded three times), Ratliff (a shotblocker with no offensive skills) and Andre Igoudala (a talented athlete who hasn't improved in two years).
    Fact: Since Larry Brown left in 2003, he's played for four coaches in four years (Randy Ayers, Chris Ford, Jim O'Brien and Mo Cheeks)
    Fact: Thanks to the C-Webb trade and their botched salary cap, the Sixers can't trade for an impact guy unless they keep rolling the dice with somebody else's problem ... a strategy that hasn't worked for them in five years.
    Can you blame A.I. for wanting out? Hell, no. That's why we're knee-deep into one of the weirdest weeks in recent NBA history -- Philly effectively putting a future Hall of Famer on eBay for a three-day auction, with a trade expected to be consummated any second -- and I'm not sure anyone fully understands the ramifications here. This isn't just any All-Star player. This could be the basketball bargain of the decade.




    Here's what you get if you trade for Allen Iverson ...
    • One of the best 30 players of all-time, a future Hall of Famer, a ferocious competitor and someone who's still in his prime as an offensive player (thanks to multiple rule changes that made it impossible to contain quicker guards who can beat players off the dribble). He's good for 30-35 a night. Pencil it in.



    • One of the most influential African-American athletes in sports history, a true trendsetter who single-handedly pushed the NBA into the hip-hop era (whether the league was ready or not).
    • One of the most fascinating, complex athletes of my lifetime: a legendary partier and devoted family man; a loyal teammate who shoots too much; a featherweight who carries himself like a heavyweight; an intimidating competitor who's always the smallest guy on the court; an ex-con with a shady entourage who also happens to be one of the most intuitive, self-aware, articulate superstars in any sport. If I could pick any current athlete to spend a week with for a magazine feature, I would pick Allen Iverson. This is an absolutely fascinating guy, in every respect.
    And if you can't get excited to follow him on your favorite team, seriously, stop following sports right now. You'll get 2-3 memorable seasons from him (maybe more). You'll have a chance to beat anyone on any given night. He's worth the risk as long as your team doesn't mortgage its entire future for him, which shouldn't be considered because of his onerous contract ($40 million owed in the two seasons after this one), the number of miles on his odomoter (significant) and his value dipping from a curious lack of interest from most teams, which would be more curious if 75-80 percent of those teams weren't poorly run.
    Still not sold? Remember four points over everything else:
    1. Philly isn't dealing Iverson because he's washed up. They're dealing him because Billy King did a preposterously bad job building this team and antagonized his only real asset in the process. Big difference. King even choked last summer when he could have landed Carlos Boozer and Boston's No. 7 pick for Iverson, choosing instead to bring the Answer back for another, inevitably frustrating season (and killing much of his trade value in the process). Not only should Sixers season-ticket holders be outraged, they should figure out a way to sue this team for negligence. Iverson should have retired as a Sixer; it's not happening because King stinks at his job. These are the facts.
    2. There's an eerie precedent here: Charles Barkley's situation deteriorated in the same city for the same reasons (he was too much of a handful, he was tired of losing, they had saddled him with too many below-average supporting cast members, their GM sucked just as much). Just like Barkley in '92, he's one of those overlooked veteran stars who finishes every All-Star Game, commands respect from his peers and watched his value artificially decline because he spent too many seasons on too many bad teams. Just like Barkley, Iverson has something significant left in the tank and desperately needs a change of scenery. And just like Barkley, he's about to become the dollar in the proverbial "three quarters for a dollar" trade ... which never works when you're the team getting the three quarters.
    3. Trades always rejuvenate great players, especially if they left their old team under bad terms. Just in the past few years, we saw this happen with Shaq in Miami, Nash in Phoenix and Kidd in Jersey. Give an elite player something to prove and he usually ends up proving it. Barkley remains the most famous example because he celebrated the trade by becoming the dominant non-MJ player on the first Dream Team, then ripping through the league in Phoenix, winning an MVP and nearly winning a title. Could this happen with Iverson? Absolutely. He's that good.
    4. Just like there will never be another Barkley, there will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be another Iverson. In fact, here's the short list of players from the post-Russell era who will never be seen again for genetic or physical reasons, all of whom can be identified with one name:
    Bird + Magic: For obvious reasons.
    Mokeski: Ditto.
    Barkley: A 6-foot-4 power forward with a weight problem who somehow doubled as a dominant rebounder and low-post player, as well as the greatest runaway train on fast breaks there ever was. Nobody took a charge from Barkley from 1985 through 1996. It never happened. Nobody ever caused more players to cower for their lives than Barkley on a fast break.
    Nimphius: Imagine Jon Bon Jovi's middle part from the "Wanted: Dead or Alive" tour merged with George Clooney's extended mullet from "The Facts of Life."
    Gervin: I just can't see anyone else scoring 30-40 a night on bank shots, runners and finger rolls when he's 6-foot-8 and about 110 pounds. He was skinnier than a supermodel. Incredible to watch in person.
    McHale: A genetic freak. When will we see another 6-foot-11 forward with his low-post moves, shot-blocking skills and arms that are six-inches too long for his body who was able to dominate games while wearing Richard Simmons' shorts? If his feet hadn't betrayed him, he could have played until he was 45. I will always believe this.
    Maravich: For reasons that can't be adequately described in a single paragraph. He's in my top five for "Athletes who most desperately need an HBO Sports documentary about them."
    Kareem: I just don't see anyone replicating the skyhook in my lifetime. Or his general ninnyness.
    Iverson: Other than Bo Jackson, the most incredible athlete I've ever watched in person.
    Well, why aren't more people mentioning that last point this week?
    You really think somebody THIS GIFTED could be washed up in the next two years? He has better balance than everyone else. He's more coordinated than everyone else. He's faster than everyone else. He's feistier than anyone else. He takes a superhuman pounding and keeps getting up. He's an athletic freak. Iverson could have been an unbelievable soccer player. He could have been a world-class boxer and a remarkable defensive center fielder and base stealer. He could have picked his sport in track and field and competed for an Olympic spot. I can't fathom how much ground he could have covered on a tennis court. We already know that he was one of the greatest high school quarterbacks in Virginia history. And I don't care how much partying he's done, how much of a pounding he's taken over the years, how big a posse he has, how difficult he's been at times ... you can't change somebody's genetic makeup. He's not even close to being washed up.
    More importantly, could you go to war with him? Would you want him out there in the last five minutes of a Game 7? Could he carry a good team and make it great? If one of your guys got slammed into a basket support on a drive, would he be the first guy who ran over to get in the offending player's face? Would the other team's fans be terrified of him every time he had the ball? Would he come through when it mattered?
    Would you really bet against Allen Iverson?




    There's another aspect to Iverson's brilliance, something the ESPN guys tried to describe last night: Quite simply, he's the most menacing player in the league. There's just something different about him, a darker edge that the other stars don't have. Once I was sitting midcourt at the Fleet Center when Iverson was whistled for a technical, yelped in disbelief, then followed the referee toward the scorer's table and screamed, "[Bleep] you!" at the top of his lungs. The official whirled around and pulled his whistle toward his mouth for a second technical.
    And I swear on my daughter's life, the following moment happened: As the official started to blow the whistle, Iverson's eyes widened and he moved angrily toward the official, almost like someone getting written up for a parking ticket who decides it would just be easier to punch out the meter maid. For a split-second, there was real violence in the air. Of course, the rattled official lowered his whistle and never called the second T. By sheer force of personality, Iverson kept himself in the game.
    Look, I'm not condoning what happened. It was a frightening moment. At the same time, I haven't seen a player bully a referee like that before or since. And that goes back to the "seeing him in person" thing. Iverson plays with a compelling, hostile, bloodthirsty energy that the other players just don't have. He's relentless in every sense of the word. He's a warrior. He's an alpha dog. He's a tornado. He's so fast and coordinated that it genuinely defies description. He's just crazy enough that officials actually cower in his presence. And none of this makes total sense unless you've seen him.
    Now Philly is holding a freaking tag sale for him, replete with a leverage-killing deadline and a "40% OFF -- EVERYTHING MUST GO!" sign. Since one of the worst GMs of the decade (King) will decide where he goes, it's impossible to predict what will happen. Just know these four things.
    First, as soon as this trade happens, Iverson will play out of his mind coming out of the gate, followed by a series of stories and features from his new teammates saying things like "I can't believe how good this guy is" and "he's completely transformed this team, we think we have a chance to win every night now," followed by the Sixers fans flipping out and demanding King's departure. I wish there was a way to wager on this scenario in Vegas. I can't believe softer contenders like the Magic, Nets or even the Mavs have underestimated the undeniable force of his personality, the potential of his crunch-time scoring if there were other scoring threats on the court, or even the fury he'll unleash on a new team. He will practically KILL HIMSELF trying to haunt the Sixers over the next three season. Mark my words.


    Second, in the ironies of ironies, Isiah Thomas kept stockpiling dreadfully expensive contracts and waiting for a superstar tag sale, finally giving up this season and buying out Jalen Rose's deal. Now he probably could have had Iverson and C-Webb for Rose's expiring contract, Channing Frye, Nate Robinson, Marbury and the Bulls' pick. Classic. Even when Isiah isn't involved in a major story, he still comes off terribly.
    Third, the best situation for Iverson should have been Minnesota, but the Timberwolves' own candidate for "Worst GM of the Decade" screwed up their roster to the point that they don't have enough appealing contracts/assets to make a respectable offer. Imagine Iverson and KG together? What a shame. Plus, King and McHale collaborating on a deal would have been practically historic, like seeing Frankie Muniz trying to post up Haley Joel Osment in a celebrity game or something. We were cheated here.
    And fourth, the teams that match up best happen to be the teams I know best: the Celtics and Clippers. For three years, Boston has been stockpiling assets and waiting for someone like Iverson to become available. Now they could probably get him for Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green (that part would kill me), their 2007 No. 1 and Theo Ratlif's corpse, er, contract (which expires in 2008) and make immediate noise in an awful conference. Remember, in a league where only a few teams have more than one good perimeter defender, the Celtics could exploit matchups every night by playing Iverson and Pierce at the same time. I also believe those guys would refine their games to make room for the other, because that's what stars do when they hit their 30s -- they sacrifice shots for a chance to win, whether you're talking about Shaq in Miami, Aguirre in Detroit, Monroe on the Knicks, Stackhouse on the Mavs, etc.). This could work.
    On the other hand, they won't compete for a title with Doc Rivers at the helm for the same reasons that "Bobby" won't get an Oscar nomination with Emilio Estevez as director. But the struggling Clippers could compete with Iverson AND have the assets to acquire him (some combination of Corey Maggette, Chris Kaman, Cuttino Mobley, expiring contracts, their own No. 1 pick and/or Minnesota's No. 1 pick, even the rights to the Greek center who looked great in the World Championships last summer). They need him and he needs them. It's the logical destination.
    For the Celtics, Iverson provides instant credibility, some headlines and maybe even some playoff wins. For the Clippers, Iverson provides a legitimate chance at the 2007 championship. For me, he becomes a bigger part of my life -- a chance to follow a once-a-year treat on a nightly basis, either on television with my favorite team or in person with the team that plays 20 minutes from my house. Either way, I can't lose. Well, unless he goes somewhere else. And that's when I FedEx a turd sandwich to Billy King.
    In the meantime, we should be celebrating this moment: A truly great player getting ready to plug himself into the Juvenation Machine. Maybe it doesn't matter where Allen Iverson ends up, just that he's going somewhere at all.
    This basically echoes how I feel about Iverson.


    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

    that's the strongest case I've heard anyone make for A.I.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

      Never read an article where the writer could present facts to convince me to love and hate a player at the same time. Pretty funny though one of his favorite teams was not the 76'ers.

      I did like his stuff on some of the other players Gervin, Maravich, etc.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

        The devaluation AI is currently receiving is both unbelievable and mildly appalling. I'm glad we have a voice of reason in the media to remind of us these things:

        He has better balance than everyone else. He's more coordinated than everyone else. He's faster than everyone else. He's feistier than anyone else. He takes a superhuman pounding and keeps getting up. He's an athletic freak.
        One of the best 30 players of all-time, a future Hall of Famer, a ferocious competitor and someone who's still in his prime as an offensive player
        It sounds so simple when you just hear the actual realities of the guy as a basketball player. Some players just defy FG% and Assist-to-Turnover ratios. This guy is one of them.

        I just wish we could be the team that gives up the equivalent of Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang and Tim Perry. The Barkley parrallels here are eerie, and if The Answer goes to and Eastern Conference team of any quality, I'd give that squad at least a 50/50 shot of making it to the ECF.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:
        @8pts9secs

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

          Originally posted by ABADays View Post
          Pretty funny though one of his favorite teams was not the 76'ers.
          All Boston, all the time.

          He is in no way a Sixer fan of any sorts.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:
          @8pts9secs

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

            Ah! Format!
            Narf!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
              The devaluation AI is currently receiving is both unbelievable and mildly appalling. I'm glad we have a voice of reason in the media to remind of us these things:

              It sounds so simple when you just hear the actual realities of the guy as a basketball player. Some players just defy FG% and Assist-to-Turnover ratios. This guy is one of them.

              I just wish we could be the team that gives up the equivalent of Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang and Tim Perry. The Barkley parrallels here are eerie, and if The Answer goes to and Eastern Conference team of any quality, I'd give that squad at least a 50/50 shot of making it to the ECF.
              I always thinking about posting this but then I realized what's the point. If you hate AI, you hate AI I guess. These kind of opportunities don't come around often...and we might not take it.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                Another great Bill Simmons article. He covered Iverson, warts and all, and brought some much needed levity to the arguement.

                He's gonna be so charged and pumped when he gets to his new team it's gonna be scary. Remember the honeymoon phase with Peja last year? Multiply that by 2 for whoever gets him.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                  Iverson attacks the basket in waves, almost like an undersized running back ramming into the line of scrimmage for four or five yards a pop (think Emmitt Smith). He takes implausible angles on his drives -- angles that can't be seen as they're unfolding, even if you've been watching him for 10 years -- and drains an obscene number of layups and floaters in traffic.
                  This is exactly why I want AI. The way that he knifes his way to the basket scares the **** outta me everytime we play him.

                  I really, really hope we get him. When was the last time we had a guy whom we could just give the ball and tell to go create a shot for himself? That's what you NEED to win in this league nowdays, top-tier creators off the dribble, and the guy who is a LEGEND because of this very same ability is going to be sold for a pittance... I'll be disappointed if we can't nab him.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    I always thinking about posting this but then I realized what's the point. If you hate AI, you hate AI I guess. These kind of opportunities don't come around often...and we might not take it.
                    And if you recall, I was just telling you Simmons was slipping last week.

                    The lesson as always....well you already know
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:
                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      And if you recall, I was just telling you Simmons was slipping last week.

                      The lesson as always....well you already know
                      Alas, I do.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                        What a BS he is talking about Philly not getting Boozer? These all "trade Boozer" rumours were denied long time before free agency started by Jazz owner Miller. Jazz were not shopping Boozer so what he is talking about?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                          Originally posted by Bill Simmons
                          Allen Iverson ...
                          • One of the best 30 players of all-time
                          That is a statement that I thought would provoke some discussion!
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            It sounds so simple when you just hear the actual realities of the guy as a basketball player. Some players just defy FG% and Assist-to-Turnover ratios. This guy is one of them.
                            What about wins-losses?

                            I mean Simmons is playing a game here, he dimisses players without actual stat comparison. For example AI "only" had overpaid Korver. Nevermind that the dude drops the 3 at 40% and still gets 4-5 rebounds.

                            To me Simmons is making the case that Korver was less helpful to Philly than Reggie was to Indy in his final season, apparently because of his salary. Nevermind Reggie getting paid the year after he left...talk about overpaid (hey, Reggie deserved the money, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the salary cap angle).

                            Iggy he dismisses as just athletic even though most Pacers fans would have traded Fred Jones straight up for him and would trade Jackson straight up for him now.


                            He's had to deal with a bunch of different coaches....as if this has nothing to do with him!!!

                            Hey, my drunk driving grandma had to go get used to 4 different cars after each of the others got wrecked. You can't blame her for wrecking so much with all that getting used to the new car all the time....err....

                            (* my grandmothers are both dead, neither drove drunk as far as I know )


                            How did AI welcome Ford? By refusing to attend practice and openly fighting with him. This is due to Ford being new to the team? Come on.

                            How many seasons did AI have the rest of the starters miss 150 games? How many times did his #2 player sit for 75 games? Etc, etc.

                            He only played with 1 AS (not true) and Simmons dismisses this as "the soon to be decripit" despite the fact that Mutumbo was an AS THAT SEASON and was traded for specifically because of how well he and AI played as the East made a furious comeback in the AS game going against Robinson, Tim and KG...remember those blocks by DM and then AI running up the court with the ball on the outlet pass. Mutumbo had 22 rebounds in that AS game...you know, cause he was washed up.

                            How many Pacer all-stars played with JO? Ron, the one year he didn't have a meltdown, and Brad Miller the year before. Wow, 2 AS instead of just one, and not in the same season. Miller wasn't on the team when Ron made the AS team, neither started with JO. Both teams won at least 48 games with two AS players (JO/Brad, JO/Ron).

                            This makes it the same since Mutumbo STARTED the AS game his first full season in Philly (and the game was in Philly as well, DM had 10 boards that year) which put AI on 2 different teams with another 2nd AS player, a starter no less. And Mutumbo wasn't a flash in the pan, he played 8 AS games with his best 2 being the years he played with AI (made it for ATL the first time, then joined Philly later that season).

                            Coleman doesn't count? The guy was 18 and 10 and just 1 season removed from being an all-star when he joined AI in Philly. That first year he got hurt, but his next year he came back with the 18/10 AND Stackhouse was there as well and only a year and half from becoming a 2 time AS himself.

                            Other teammates that same season: Jim Jackson, Tim Thomas, Joe Smith, Clarence Weatherspoon, and THEO RATLIFF - all-star a few years later for Philly in 00-01.
                            (remember when Simmons said this..."Fact: He played with only one All-Star in Philly"...yeah, that was actually bulls***. Either stupidity or a lie, you pick. Either way think about how informed the opinion is. Theo was injured and didn't play, but initially he was named to the AS team.)

                            Big Dog was just 2 years removed from being an AS and his numbers were only slightly down from that season, mostly due to 6-7 less MPG and 4-5 less FGA (gee, how could that happen). The main issue with him were the injuries that season, not his ability when he was playing.

                            Kukoc - great example. With the Bulls - 18 ppg, 5.4 reb, 5.2 ast. Goes to Philly - 12.4/4.5/4.4 and then 8.0/3.4/1.9. Goes to ATL that 2nd season - 19.7/5.7/6.2. Isn't it strange that his numbers were fine, tanked mid-season when he went to Philly, stayed like that during the next season till another mid-season trade and then jumped back up in Atlanta. Was he washed up or was AI his "teammate".

                            Tim Thomas has a big impact in Phoenix but while in Philly he's just an underachiever?

                            And if you want irony just listen to the reason he gives for Stackhouse being worthless...he's "a selfish scorer". WTF? This is why Stack is bad, but if someone says it about AI you get "yeah, but because he HAS to score".

                            Williamson is no good? What freaking lucky magic did Rick Carlisle pull out to take BOTH Stackhouse and Williamson to a division title, finishing 7 games ahead of AI's Sixers just one year after the Finals run and while Larry Brown was still coaching there coming off winning COY (ie, it wasn't the new coach)? Stack was the #1 scorer on that team and Williamson was the #3 scorer. And the other 2 main players were the aging Cliff Robinson and a rebounding defensive specialist with no offense at all (hmm, sorta like his knock on Ratliff). All AI had was AS starter Mutumbo.

                            Mutumbo had 10.8 rebounds and 2.38 blocks per game that season for the Sixers when they only won 43 and finished well behind Detroit. McKie shot 40% from 3 (and has always been a strong defensive player). Snow handed out 6.6 assists.

                            But they were the problem, not Iverson leading the team in 3pt attempts, DOUBLING the 3PA of McKie, despite shooting it BELOW 30%.

                            I know he's tough and he drives and all that. But 300 3PAs at a 29% rate is just flat-out ball hog chucking. If you are so freaking great for the team then why don't you have 9 apg as you drive and dish to 40% McKie instead? Or how about the tall dude with elbows, surely he could dunk a few off when they double you at the rim.



                            There is a bunch of IMAGE over reality in Simmons argument. AI is great because we believe him to be great. His coaches leave because they stink, his teammates always let him down even if they have success playing elsewhere. AI has had plenty of quality teammates, certainly no worse than Pierce unless you think Walker was a lot better than PF shooters like Korver or Tim Thomas, or that an old Payton is stronger than a young McKie.

                            Of course AI was the best guy on his team. But many playoff teams have featured only 1 AS. Make it 2 and you often see a Finals caliber team. AI has played with 2 different bigs, both defensive and rebounding specialists, both named AS while playing with AI. A couple of others were AS just before joining AI or just after leaving AI.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Simmons: Don't Question the Answer (ESPN)

                              If you had been the prosecutor. OJ wouldn't still be looking for the killer.
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X