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

Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

    http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vi...998798&cache=1

  • #2
    Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

    As I recall he once turned Walt Frazier into his personal whipping boy to the tune of 68 points.

    As hall of famers go, Maravich may be the most underrated. He was widely resented in the 70's and I think that kept him from getting the same just due that guys like Connie Hawkins and Earl monroe did.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

      I prefer "Machine Gun" Marquis...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

        Pistol Pete was perhaps the biggest loser in basketball history. People talk about Marbury, Francis, and Baron Davis. They've got nothing on Pistol Pete. First of all, his legendary college career was made legendary by the fact that he made sure to go to the college where his own father was the head coach, LSU. Of course daddy is gonna let him shoot it as many times as he wants to, which led to his amazingly bloated college scoring numbers. We'll just forget the fact that he never once led LSU to the NCAA Tournament. You'd think the "best" player in college basketball history by himself would be good enough to at least lead his team to a lower seed. Nope. The "greatest" college basketball player of all-time didn't even go #1 overall in the draft, he goes #3 behind Bob Lanier (Pistons) and Rudy Tomjanovich (Rockets). Then comes his NBA career, no more daddy around to let him have his way, so of course his scoring goes way down but the losing continues....

        ATLANTA HAWKS
        70-71: 36-46 (12 fewer wins then the season before)
        71-72: 36-46
        72-73: 46-36 (career high in assists - only winning season in his first 9. how odd.)
        73-74: 35-47
        NEW ORLEANS JAZZ
        74-75: 23-59
        75-76: 38-44
        76-77: 35-47
        77-78: 39-43
        78-79: 26-56
        79-80: WAIVED!


        I'm not even gonna consider his final season, when he played 17 games with the Boston Celtics.

        Career: 314-424 (.425)

        What a winner that Pistol Pete! Wait, no he wasn't. His own teammates said he was a loser. But who cares about wins and losses, he had floppy socks and did neat tricks! Floppy socks and neat tricks are what basketball is all about!*


        *sarcasm

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

          So...does that mean Jordan isn't the greatest player ever, since he didn't get drafted #1 either?

          And it's foolish to imply that it was somehow easy to get into the NCAA tournament back in Maravich's day, compared to now. If you didn't win your conference, you couldn't get in. And no, he should not have been expected to beat Kentucky all by himself.

          I sense a lot of jealousy and envy, but hey that's just me.

          You want to say he wasn't a winner? Fine, albeit he never had the talent around him to win. But to imply that he wasn't one of the best guards ever to play the game is irresponsible and ignorant. His game spoke for itself. He was as offensively gifted as any guard in NBA history.

          As for his teammates hating him, they resented his contract, which wasn't his fault.

          But yeah, the only reason why he averaged 44ppg in college is because his dad was the coach. Of course, how did I not figure out it was that simple. All you need to do to score 40+ppg is to have a green light to shoot. It's not as if you have to play against a defense, or anything...

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            So...does that mean Jordan isn't the greatest player ever, since he didn't get drafted #1 either?
            This is an ignorant statement on your part. I clearly used the fact that for his entire career he was a me-first, me-second, me-third, team-fourth loser as to why he's so massively overrated. Pointing out that was taken #3 was used only to show you that not all teams were fooled by his stat-padded college career.

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            And it's foolish to imply that it was somehow easy to get into the NCAA tournament back in Maravich's day, compared to now. If you didn't win your conference, you couldn't get in. And no, he should not have been expected to beat Kentucky all by himself.
            There were 23-25 teams in the NCAA Tournament during Pete's college career. There were more than enough open spots for non-great teams to make it in. Of course, LSU was never even really close to making the tournament and were around .500 for most of Pete's time there.


            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            I sense a lot of jealousy and envy, but hey that's just me.
            Yes, of all the players in NBA history, I've chosen the goofy looking skinny guy who was a career loser and died almost 20 years ago to be envious of.

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            You want to say he wasn't a winner? Fine, albeit he never had the talent around him to win. But to imply that he wasn't one of the best guards ever to play the game is irresponsible and ignorant. His game spoke for itself. He was as offensively gifted as any guard in NBA history.
            Overall, taking into account his selfish mentality and unrivaled apathy towards winning, no he wasn't that good. He was a black hole who was all about promoting himself over the well being of his teams. I don't care how gifted he was, that aforementioned fact makes it all for naught. Basketball isn't all about physical skills, just ask Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis or of course Ron Artest (btw - all 3 are already bigger winners than Pistol Pete ever was)

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            As for his teammates hating him, they resented his contract, which wasn't his fault.
            Yeah that could be it....or.....they resented the fact that he'd rather pretend he was playing in the circus than playing an actual basketball game where the goal is to win, not see how many "ohhs & ahhs!" .you can get from the crowd.

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            But yeah, the only reason why he averaged 44ppg in college is because his dad was the coach. Of course, how did I not figure out it was that simple. All you need to do to score 40+ppg is to have a green light to shoot. It's not as if you have to play against a defense, or anything...
            To discard the fact that his father gave him the green light to put up an unheard of number of shots per game is simply goofy, and you know it. And yes, any reasonably talented basketball player can put up big scoring numbers if they're taking half their teams shots, as Pistol Pete did. He shot sub-par FG%'s against sub-par college defenses his entire career. That's not that impressive.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

              thanks for posting that. that's the first time i have seen alot of his clips, some of the stuff he did is amazing!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                There were 23-25 teams in the NCAA Tournament during Pete's college career. There were more than enough open spots for non-great teams to make it in.

                You obviously don't know much about the history of the NCAA tournament. You had to WIN your conference to make it in, period, prior to 1975.

                THERE WERE NO AT-LARGE TEAMS AT ALL.

                If you were a top 5 team in the country but if you finished behind ANY other conference opponent, you went to the NIT or went home. The 20+ teams were champions of the then 20+ conferences (before conference mega-mergers) and about 15 of them were podunks.

                Under the rules of that day were in place now, this season only one Big Ten team between Ohio State and Wisconsin would even make the field.

                Yes, there were times when top 5 teams failed to make the tournament because of this. In the ACC in particular, they have always had a conference tournament and some great teams stayed home.

                In 1973-1974, IU shared the Big Ten Title with Michigan and were a top 10 team. They barely lost a one-game playoff two days after the regular season ended to Michigan and missed the NCAA. They played in and won a short-lived tournament featuring second-place teams from all of the conferences, the CCA. This tournament disbanded the next year, when the NCAA finally allowed at-large teams.

                Of course today almost as often as not the overall NCAA champion was not a conference champion.

                You are right that he didn't win much. In those days LSU's basketball program had roughly the stature of Penn State's or Northwestern's hoops programs today. That is, nobody paid any attention to them since they were always an easy win and never got any decent recruits outside of a 20 mile radius surrounding Baton Rouge. He was then drafted onto badly run and perennial-losing NBA teams. At the very end he became a Celtic. Unfortunately his knees were shot and they did not then have the surgical techniques to help him keep playing.
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                  PS I was lucky enough as about a 6 year old to see a few of his games in college. Living in southern Indiana, the Louisville station channel 3 carried SEC games every Saturday all afternoon.

                  Actually seeing Pete Maravich and also seeing Rick Mount play (best shooter to ever play college ball) got me hooked on basketball before I was even in grade school.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                    Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                    This is an ignorant statement on your part. I clearly used the fact that for his entire career he was a me-first, me-second, me-third, team-fourth loser as to why he's so massively overrated. Pointing out that was taken #3 was used only to show you that not all teams were fooled by his stat-padded college career.



                    There were 23-25 teams in the NCAA Tournament during Pete's college career. There were more than enough open spots for non-great teams to make it in. Of course, LSU was never even really close to making the tournament and were around .500 for most of Pete's time there.



                    Yes, of all the players in NBA history, I've chosen the goofy looking skinny guy who was a career loser and died almost 20 years ago to be envious of.



                    Overall, taking into account his selfish mentality and unrivaled apathy towards winning, no he wasn't that good. He was a black hole who was all about promoting himself over the well being of his teams. I don't care how gifted he was, that aforementioned fact makes it all for naught. Basketball isn't all about physical skills, just ask Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis or of course Ron Artest (btw - all 3 are already bigger winners than Pistol Pete ever was)



                    Yeah that could be it....or.....they resented the fact that he'd rather pretend he was playing in the circus than playing an actual basketball game where the goal is to win, not see how many "ohhs & ahhs!" .you can get from the crowd.



                    To discard the fact that his father gave him the green light to put up an unheard of number of shots per game is simply goofy, and you know it. And yes, any reasonably talented basketball player can put up big scoring numbers if they're taking half their teams shots, as Pistol Pete did. He shot sub-par FG%'s against sub-par college defenses his entire career. That's not that impressive.


                    quoteBasketball isn't all about physical skills,

                    I suppose this is the reason that players like Steve Alford or Damon B. or any number of IU players never made an imprint in the NBA. Come on, the NBA is all about physical skills, without them, players will not even get a toe in the door. Why the hate for Pistol Pete? He worked as hard as any player in basketball to hone his skills and to make it to the big stage. I don't think that today's NBA stars would actually sleep with a basketball and carry it everywhere, like Pete did. I find your critizism of Pete misguided.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                      To put "Pistol Pete" in perspective: One of the premier guards and ballhandlers of all time, Isiah Thomas, said that Pete was the best ballhandler in all of baketball, period. He was an absolute magician with the ball.

                      Sure he didn't win much in college or the pros but he did more for the NBA then most players who won much more. He was the innovator of many moves plus, the no-look pass, the cross-over dribble, the behind the back pass, etc. (Actually Cousy was the originator of some of these passes but he was a robot compared to Pete).

                      He never was surrounded with much talent so he was the SHOW. Very few players ever probably put in as many hours in the gym as he.

                      I didn't care for him in college because he did shoot a lot because of his dad but I learned to appreciate his skills in the NBA even if he wasn't on a lot of winning teams.
                      .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                        You obviously don't know much about the history of the NCAA tournament. You had to WIN your conference to make it in, period, prior to 1975.

                        THERE WERE NO AT-LARGE TEAMS AT ALL.

                        If you were a top 5 team in the country but if you finished behind ANY other conference opponent, you went to the NIT or went home. The 20+ teams were champions of the then 20+ conferences (before conference mega-mergers) and about 15 of them were podunks.

                        Under the rules of that day were in place now, this season only one Big Ten team between Ohio State and Wisconsin would even make the field.

                        Yes, there were times when top 5 teams failed to make the tournament because of this. In the ACC in particular, they have always had a conference tournament and some great teams stayed home.

                        In 1973-1974, IU shared the Big Ten Title with Michigan and were a top 10 team. They barely lost a one-game playoff two days after the regular season ended to Michigan and missed the NCAA. They played in and won a short-lived tournament featuring second-place teams from all of the conferences, the CCA. This tournament disbanded the next year, when the NCAA finally allowed at-large teams.

                        Of course today almost as often as not the overall NCAA champion was not a conference champion.

                        You are right that he didn't win much. In those days LSU's basketball program had roughly the stature of Penn State's or Northwestern's hoops programs today. That is, nobody paid any attention to them since they were always an easy win and never got any decent recruits outside of a 20 mile radius surrounding Baton Rouge. He was then drafted onto badly run and perennial-losing NBA teams. At the very end he became a Celtic. Unfortunately his knees were shot and they did not then have the surgical techniques to help him keep playing.



                        Of course, my memories of Pete are filtered through a kid's mentality, but I was a big fan of Pete. That reminds me, I have a Psitol Pete basketball card hidden in my attic somewhere. I'm going to have to find it and see if ti has any value.

                        I'm with roferr on this. I, for one, aren't going to respond to what appears to be a well written troll post. Pete was amazing.
                        Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                          Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                          This is an ignorant statement on your part. I clearly used the fact that for his entire career he was a me-first, me-second, me-third, team-fourth loser as to why he's so massively overrated. Pointing out that was taken #3 was used only to show you that not all teams were fooled by his stat-padded college career.



                          There were 23-25 teams in the NCAA Tournament during Pete's college career. There were more than enough open spots for non-great teams to make it in. Of course, LSU was never even really close to making the tournament and were around .500 for most of Pete's time there.



                          Yes, of all the players in NBA history, I've chosen the goofy looking skinny guy who was a career loser and died almost 20 years ago to be envious of.



                          Overall, taking into account his selfish mentality and unrivaled apathy towards winning, no he wasn't that good. He was a black hole who was all about promoting himself over the well being of his teams. I don't care how gifted he was, that aforementioned fact makes it all for naught. Basketball isn't all about physical skills, just ask Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis or of course Ron Artest (btw - all 3 are already bigger winners than Pistol Pete ever was)



                          Yeah that could be it....or.....they resented the fact that he'd rather pretend he was playing in the circus than playing an actual basketball game where the goal is to win, not see how many "ohhs & ahhs!" .you can get from the crowd.



                          To discard the fact that his father gave him the green light to put up an unheard of number of shots per game is simply goofy, and you know it. And yes, any reasonably talented basketball player can put up big scoring numbers if they're taking half their teams shots, as Pistol Pete did. He shot sub-par FG%'s against sub-par college defenses his entire career. That's not that impressive.

                          Drink up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                            I have not seen so many games with Pete, he was very fun to watch tho(especially if u was a fan in that time / era).
                            He was original, he was the first one with so many tricks, he was ahead of his time with his style and thats about it.......................... nothing more, nothing less.

                            If you took away his "magic ballhandling skills" then i dont think he would even be remembered today, well not as famous as today. He is/was not underrated or overrated, but only remembered and respected as THE "inventor"... he took a hard job, that job which you would be hated for from your teammates/coaches in that time & era but at the other end being very famous later for pushing the NBA to another level.

                            Think if there was no guys like Pistol Pete and that basketball would still be the same as in the 60s - 70s, we would today be SHOT for dribbling the ball between the legs in a game?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pistol Pete - you guys should have seen him

                              He was amazing to watch. If he were my son he would have been shooting his a55 off too.
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X