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

Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

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

  • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    I don't agree with it but many people do think this. To pretend otherwise is rather silly.
    Well MY point was not everyone thinks that way, which is what you said when you used the word "always."

    And yes some do, others don't. Since you brought up football, when I think of someone like Big Ben, the number of rings he has doesn't pop into mind. When I think of Kobe, rings doesn't come to mind. When I think of Rip Hamilton, the number of rings he has doesn't come to mind.

    I can keep going with the examples. And if/when KD wins a ring with GS him having to ride coattails to get his ring will most definitely come to mind. Had Karl Malone won a ring, him riding coattails would have been remembered moreso than the ring. IF GS wins a ring next year, West will always be known as a NBA champ, he'll also always be known as a ring chaser.
    Last edited by Since86; 07-11-2016, 11:36 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      So winning a ring as the best QB in the league is the same as winning a ring as the worst? You really dumb this discussion down to unspeakably dense levels.
      What a silly argument.

      But you're missing some key context so I'll help make it even more absurd.

      I don't think Ben's first SB ring is in any way diminished. That team was lead by J-Peezy, Troy, Jerome, Big Snack, Hines, Randel-El, Faneca, etc. And a great coach. They had so many stars at so many other positions that they couldn't afford to be a one-man team with a massive QB salary-cap hit. Of course, the only reason they didn't win two in a row was that rookie QB played like a rookie against the Jets in the playoffs and cost a 15-1 team a better shot that the one they actually won with the following year. (Although Bettis might have retired a year earlier, which would be a problem for the two-in-a-row narrative.) But Ben played well enough, and was a fundamental-enough tackler in the open field to overcome the poor officiating that mistakenly overturned Troy's absurdly impressive interception to get into that position, so who really cares if he has the all-time lowest rating for a winning QB in SB history or not. (That might be true, didn't look it up.) The only thing hurting Ben's legacy of three SB rings is that Mendenhall put the ball on the ground in the fourth quarter of SB'45. Does Mendenhall's fumble really hurt's Ben legacy of being the second most successful QB (behind Brady) this century?

      It's a team sport. Individual rings don't mean all that much unless you're really trying to argue that R. Horry > Jordan or Russell > Wilt because of team success. No, Horry just played a role on more championship teams and Russell was surrounded by more Hall-of-Famers that Wilt. And Ben, Peyton, and Eli all played (to-date, although I'm optimistic about the next couple of seasons as the defensive rebuild is almost complete) on the same number of SB winning teams. Team awards a lousy way to evaluate or rank individual players in a team sport.

      And by the way, Carl Lewis is still >>> Michael Phelps. How's that for stirring the pot???
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

        Is it wrong that I can thank Jay for showing up and at the same time want to beat him with a tire iron for bringing up Big Strawman Bob...

        And Wilt's ring count tells every bit as much about his career as his individual stats do. You could write a 700-page book on the amount of times he melted down when he had a championship in his sights.
        Last edited by Kstat; 07-12-2016, 10:51 AM.

        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


        • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

          How the Steelers won is certainty fascinating, but no one would ever say that Ben is one of the very best QB's in league history (very good for sure, but certainly not in a Manning-Brady class) When comparing a Manning to a Brady, Super Bowl performance matters. If someone is going to say that Manning's 2015 win (as an extremely limited QB) was just as impressive as Brady's 2014 win (still a premier QB), then there's no amount of logic I can bring to the discussion. I'll waive a white flag in that instance because its not worth the effort.

          When you're comparing a Manning and Brady, you have 10 total Super Bowl appearances. With that large of a sample size, how each played matters.

          In 2006, Peyton was able to beat the Pats with his arm in the second half. He would not have been able to do that in 2015. He was a game manager at that point (it worked great, not disputing that). Of course that makes a difference when judging the overall impressiveness of his performance in each year.

          No one is disputing that these are team games. Every champion team had an equal amounted success at the end of the day, but every team is different when it comes to the importance placed on each position and where they got their biggest contributions from.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-12-2016, 11:05 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

            Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
            What a silly argument.

            But you're missing some key context so I'll help make it even more absurd.

            I don't think Ben's first SB ring is in any way diminished. That team was lead by J-Peezy, Troy, Jerome, Big Snack, Hines, Randel-El, Faneca, etc. And a great coach. They had so many stars at so many other positions that they couldn't afford to be a one-man team with a massive QB salary-cap hit. Of course, the only reason they didn't win two in a row was that rookie QB played like a rookie against the Jets in the playoffs and cost a 15-1 team a better shot that the one they actually won with the following year. (Although Bettis might have retired a year earlier, which would be a problem for the two-in-a-row narrative.) But Ben played well enough, and was a fundamental-enough tackler in the open field to overcome the poor officiating that mistakenly overturned Troy's absurdly impressive interception to get into that position, so who really cares if he has the all-time lowest rating for a winning QB in SB history or not. (That might be true, didn't look it up.) The only thing hurting Ben's legacy of three SB rings is that Mendenhall put the ball on the ground in the fourth quarter of SB'45. Does Mendenhall's fumble really hurt's Ben legacy of being the second most successful QB (behind Brady) this century?

            It's a team sport. Individual rings don't mean all that much unless you're really trying to argue that R. Horry > Jordan or Russell > Wilt because of team success. No, Horry just played a role on more championship teams and Russell was surrounded by more Hall-of-Famers that Wilt. And Ben, Peyton, and Eli all played (to-date, although I'm optimistic about the next couple of seasons as the defensive rebuild is almost complete) on the same number of SB winning teams. Team awards a lousy way to evaluate or rank individual players in a team sport.

            And by the way, Carl Lewis is still >>> Michael Phelps. How's that for stirring the pot???
            Nothing you said really challenges his point.

            How players win rings is definitely thought of. Before last season, no one placed Trent Dilfer and Peyton Manning on the same tier, outside of complete morons. The reasoning for that is 100% crystal clear.

            If Durant wins a ring, people will remember that ring. They will also remember HOW he achieved said ring. You cannot separate the destination from the path taken to get there. It is never as simple as "Well X won a ring, and that's all that matters."

            No, how they won, where they won, and the contributions they gave will always have a place in the memory.

            And while you might not think Ben's rings are diminished, he's still not on the level of Peyton/Brady. Rings aren't viewed as equal. They're not a constant that is plugged in to different players/situations and carry the same weight for all of them. That's not how it works.
            Last edited by Since86; 07-12-2016, 11:04 AM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

              Why the is there a football discussion going on in a thread about NBA titles?


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Nothing you said really challenges his point.

                How players win rings is definitely thought of. Before last season, no one placed Trent Dilfer and Peyton Manning on the same tier, outside of complete morons. The reasoning for that is 100% crystal clear.

                If Durant wins a ring, people will remember that ring. They will also remember HOW he achieved said ring. You cannot separate the destination from the path taken to get there. It is never as simple as "Well X won a ring, and that's all that matters."

                No, how they won, where they won, and the contributions they gave will always have a place in the memory.

                And while you might not think Ben's rings are diminished, he's still not on the level of Peyton/Brady. Rings aren't viewed as equal. They're not a constant that is plugged in to different players/situations and carry the same weight for all of them. That's not how it works.
                Look no further than this past NBA season. Lebron winning a ring how he did in Cleveland has completely silenced any criticism about his legacy.

                Comment


                • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                  Why the is there a football discussion going on in a thread about NBA titles?
                  Because in football, with 22 starters and a fifty-person roster, its even more about the TEAM and less about the individual player than basketball. Football illustrates the point even better. Its even more silly to talk about the number of rings a QB wins when they don't tackle because they aren't even on the field when the other team has the ball.

                  Seriously, Terry Bradshaw was the only one with four rings for a long, long time. Terry may have played better in big games but Terry would not be in the conversation about all-time greats if he didn't play with the Steel Curtain, Franco, Stallworth, Swann, Webster, etc. Which is pretty much the same story for Manning's second ring - he joined forces with a great defense and good running game and then nobody had to worry about whether he could win a playoff game in the cold because he was finally on the side of defense and running game made for January.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                    Because in football, with 22 starters and a fifty-person roster, its even more about the TEAM and less about the individual player than basketball. Football illustrates the point even better. Its even more silly to talk about the number of rings a QB wins when they don't tackle because they aren't even on the field when the other team has the ball.

                    Seriously, Terry Bradshaw was the only one with four rings for a long, long time. Terry may have played better in big games but Terry would not be in the conversation about all-time greats if he didn't play with the Steel Curtain, Franco, Stallworth, Swann, Webster, etc. Which is pretty much the same story for Manning's second ring - he joined forces with a great defense and good running game and then nobody had to worry about whether he could win a playoff game in the cold because he was finally on the side of defense and running game made for January.
                    Then take the conversation to the football forum. Personally, I don't like or watch football, so this topic brought nothing to the thread.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                      Then take the conversation to the football forum. Personally, I don't like or watch football, so this topic brought nothing to the thread.
                      Cool. Thanks for your feedback.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Nothing you said really challenges his point.
                        Good, because I wasn't challenging it, I was making the same argument with even more obnoxious flaws.

                        Re-read my second sentence.

                        And Ben's ring is exactly what it was supposed to be based on his role - manage the game, give the ball to Jerome and Fast Willie, and let Joey, Troy, Ike, Casey and the defense win it. That's why it is isn't diminished. There's no special "QB" ring at the SuperBowl. Every player gets the same ring.

                        Not every above-average QB gets drafted onto a team with a Super Bowl caliber defense and running game and can go 15-1 as a rookie and win the SB in their second year.

                        Just as not every center in the 1960's was lucky enough to play on the Celtics with nine other HOF'ers. Walt Bellamy is also in the Hall. Are you telling me that those Celtics teams would have won any fewer by only swapping out Russell for another HOF center from the same era? Of course not. Russell was just one piece in that machine.

                        Championships are a team award, not an individual award. Period. Measuring the quantity of championships is outright silly.

                        Now it is fair to ask, was the player ever a champion? That's not the same as ranking individual players by the number of team awards they were part of.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                          Championships are a team award. Great individuals make teams better.

                          Rings are more important in basketball than football because of the enormous impact one individual can have. In football you can only play one side of the field. In baseball you can usually only bat 4 or 5 times. However, in basketball, a superstar's ability to impact a game on both sides is at times unlimited. Look at Jordan Game 6 98 in Utah. He willed the outcome on both ends of the floor.

                          Jordan didn't win 6 titles because "he was on the great teams"....lol, he was the great team.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Championships are a team award. Great individuals make teams better.

                            Rings are more important in basketball than football because of the enormous impact one individual can have. In football you can only play one side of the field. In baseball you can usually only bat 4 or 5 times. However, in basketball, a superstar's ability to impact a game on both sides is at times unlimited. Look at Jordan Game 6 98 in Utah. He willed the outcome on both ends of the floor.

                            Jordan didn't win 6 titles because "he was on the great teams"....lol, he was the great team.
                            And yet he has teammates and coaches in the HOF. He still wasn't a one-man team. Now, had he been surrounded by a few more HOF'ers maybe he'd have more than just one more ring than Don Nelson had (5) as a player. And yes, I can tell you from living in Chicago all those years Jerry Krause still gets blamed for that.

                            Your statement doesn't need to include the number, or any number. Try it with me. "Jordan won a title because of his greatness." That's all you need to say. Adding the number six does nothing for your statement.

                            If you want to go there, Walton won a title in '77 because he "was" the team. And how many more could he have won with healthy feet? Definitely another in '78. Probably a lot more. So there is more than just greatness that goes into the number, and there is some greatness out there with the number zero. (Sabonis, for example, who didn't come to the league until the end of his career.)
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              Look no further than this past NBA season. Lebron winning a ring how he did in Cleveland has completely silenced any criticism about his legacy.
                              I don't know about silence everyone has their detractors(myself being one of LeBron's) but even had the Cavs lost that series I wasn't going to think less of his career either.

                              If Durant wins a ring with GS he wins a ring. I think that's all he wants what people think of him beyond that is really not going to matter in the end except to a select few who have already made up their minds before any games were played.
                              Last edited by Basketball Fan; 07-12-2016, 07:10 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                                Russell's celtics got taken to a deciding game eleven times during their 13-year run. Do I think they would have won fewer without him? You're damn right I do. And that includes wilt, who despite being the most gifted center maybe ever was never as mentally prepared to win all the time like Russell was. It's a joke to call Bill Russell "a cog in the machine." He was the machine.

                                The celtics weren't some unstoppable force because half of their roster ended up in the hall of fame. A lot of those guy are in the hall because they were Russell's teammates, not because they were great indicidual talents.
                                Last edited by Kstat; 07-12-2016, 07:50 PM.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X