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

The Pacers have never had that one player

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

  • #31
    Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

    Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
    Exactly.

    I just think Reggie is overrated as far as "clutch". Some call him "the greatest clutch player in NBA history" and that is just false.

    Yeah he hit big shots, but as you pointed out, Jay, most of Reggies greatest clutch moments were in early games.

    I just wish Reggie would have taken over games more in his career like he did in the 2000 playoffs.
    Here we go again... Reggie is a "shooter" ok? The best and the most productive one in NBA History aswell.... MJ is a "slasher" ok? The most productive one in NBA History and he had better all-round game... MJ is aswell the best player to EVER play BBall in the Universe...

    Ok, now when u gona choose TWO of the best Shooting Guards in History who would u pick ? Since there is TWO kind of SG´s, Shooters & Slashers... MJ is Number 1, Reggie Number 2... Or u can just put another "Slasher" Shooting Guard on #2 but that wouldnt be Fair...

    So, as u can see... Pacers had "That One Player", but NEVER had "THAT ONE TEAM"

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

      I agree I would want Jordan to have the ball in his hands at clutch time over anyone, with one exception. If a three was needed to win or tie I would give the ball to Reggie.

      EDIT> I just thought of another exception. It would depend on the amount of time left on the clock. Less than two seconds left and a two pointer needed to tie or win. Again I give the ball to Reggie.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

        Originally posted by 3ptmiller
        Here we go again... Reggie is a "shooter" ok? The best and the most productive one in NBA History aswell.... MJ is a "slasher" ok? The most productive one in NBA History and he had better all-round game... MJ is aswell the best player to EVER play BBall in the Universe...

        Ok, now when u gona choose TWO of the best Shooting Guards in History who would u pick ? Since there is TWO kind of SG´s, Shooters & Slashers... MJ is Number 1, Reggie Number 2... Or u can just put another "Slasher" Shooting Guard on #2 but that wouldnt be Fair...

        So, as u can see... Pacers had "That One Player", but NEVER had "THAT ONE TEAM"



        When your "best player" relies on a triple-screen and precision passing just to get his shot, you've got a great Pacers' team of the mid-to-late-1990s (Jackson, Jalen and Derrick with the passing; Dale, Tony, Derrick and Rik with the triple screens; Rik and Jalen -and to a lesser extent, Mullin, Perkins, Jackson and Best- with the offensive presence to take some pressure off Reggie; Dale and Tony to control the paint and boards; Derrick, Dale and Tony to cover for defensive weaknesses from Reggie, Jackson, Jalen and Rik; etc.)

        The one thing the Pacers had during Reggie's prime was a well-oiled, perhaps overachieving team. What they didn't have was one player that could take over a game by himself, scoring at-will. Reggie could take over a game at times, but he needed triple-screens and Jackson's passing to do so. In other words, the entire team was built around maximizing Reggie's strenghts. Guys like Derrick, Jackson, Tony and Rik happily (well, until Tony wanted to start they were happy) set aside individual agendas in order to make that a true team.

        I think your premise is really flawed. I've always thought that Reggie's surrounding cast was superior to Jordan's. I thought Pippen was overrated because Jordan made everyone around him better. All-star, absolutely. All-NBA/ Dream-team worthy and one of the fifty best of all time? No way. Rodman and Grant were helpful but limited. Harper, Kerr, Paxson, Brown, Kukoc, Armstrong, etc. were all just role players that complemented Jordan and happened to play the best ball of thier careers feasting off his table scraps.

        I know you love Reggie and that's fine, but you spend a lot of time disrespecting the rest of Reggie's teams without logic or reason to back it up. I can understand guys from that team like Derrick driving Peck to call him "Satan" or my impatience with Dale "The original Oven Mitts" Davis and Travis "All he does is just pound the damn ball" Best. But that was truly a "team", the "whole" was greater than "the sum of the parts" not just a collection of individual pieces - which is one of the most common criticisims of the current Pacers *and* many of the other teams in the leauge.

        I agree with Will. If I need a shot in less than two seconds, or if I need a three-pointer, I'm going to Reggie (assuming Jerry West is not available). Otherwise, I'm not picking Reggie, but I'll probably pick that prick that wore #33 for the Green Guys. Worst case scenario, he's double-teamed and he gives it to that prick that wore #32 for the Green Guys.
        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


        • #34
          Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

          Hey, If we are talking about clutch players lets not forget Larry Bird..The guy had more clutch shots then MJ and Reg.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

            Originally posted by 8.9_seconds
            I honestly believe that if Reggie had been a Chicago bull, and Michael an Indiana Pacer, their life and team roles would be totally reversed.
            And the Pacers would have won six championships, not the Bulls.

            By the way, no team in the world could EVER turn Michael Jordan into a 3 point shooting, no defense, one dimensional player.



            8.9 Seconds and 3ptmiller..... how old are you guys?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204


              When your "best player" relies on a triple-screen and precision passing just to get his shot, you've got a great Pacers' team of the mid-to-late-1990s (Jackson, Jalen and Derrick with the passing; Dale, Tony, Derrick and Rik with the triple screens; Rik and Jalen -and to a lesser extent, Mullin, Perkins, Jackson and Best- with the offensive presence to take some pressure off Reggie; Dale and Tony to control the paint and boards; Derrick, Dale and Tony to cover for defensive weaknesses from Reggie, Jackson, Jalen and Rik; etc.)

              The one thing the Pacers had during Reggie's prime was a well-oiled, perhaps overachieving team. What they didn't have was one player that could take over a game by himself, scoring at-will. Reggie could take over a game at times, but he needed triple-screens and Jackson's passing to do so. In other words, the entire team was built around maximizing Reggie's strenghts. Guys like Derrick, Jackson, Tony and Rik happily (well, until Tony wanted to start they were happy) set aside individual agendas in order to make that a true team.

              I think your premise is really flawed. I've always thought that Reggie's surrounding cast was superior to Jordan's. I thought Pippen was overrated because Jordan made everyone around him better. All-star, absolutely. All-NBA/ Dream-team worthy and one of the fifty best of all time? No way. Rodman and Grant were helpful but limited. Harper, Kerr, Paxson, Brown, Kukoc, Armstrong, etc. were all just role players that complemented Jordan and happened to play the best ball of thier careers feasting off his table scraps.

              I know you love Reggie and that's fine, but you spend a lot of time disrespecting the rest of Reggie's teams without logic or reason to back it up. I can understand guys from that team like Derrick driving Peck to call him "Satan" or my impatience with Dale "The original Oven Mitts" Davis and Travis "All he does is just pound the damn ball" Best. But that was truly a "team", the "whole" was greater than "the sum of the parts" not just a collection of individual pieces - which is one of the most common criticisims of the current Pacers *and* many of the other teams in the leauge.

              I agree with Will. If I need a shot in less than two seconds, or if I need a three-pointer, I'm going to Reggie (assuming Jerry West is not available). Otherwise, I'm not picking Reggie, but I'll probably pick that prick that wore #33 for the Green Guys. Worst case scenario, he's double-teamed and he gives it to that prick that wore #32 for the Green Guys.

              I agree with everything you said, except that about Pippen.

              Pippen proved he was one of the top players in the game when MJ was out in 1993-1994 and most of 1994-1995. Pippen led the Bulls to game 7 against the heavily favored New York Knicks in 1994. Pippen in his prime was one of the best players in the game. But outside of Pip, like you said, the Bulls role players were just average players that looked good because Jordan made them look good.

              and to respond to 3ptmiller.

              I think the definition of "clutch" gets twisted around. Alot say that Reggie is teh greatest "clutch" player because he has hit alot of shots with hardly any time left. I think the true definition of clutch is being able to take over games and will your teams to victory like MJ and Bird did.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                Originally posted by 3ptmiller
                You can not say that MJ was better than Reggie and you can not say that Reggie was better than MJ..
                You can, without a doubt, every time, say Jordan was better than Reggie.

                Good grief.....

                A better question might be.... who was better... Reggie or Scottie?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                  Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                  Alot say that Reggie is teh greatest "clutch" player because he has hit alot of shots with hardly any time left.
                  I would amend that by saying that many people include Reggie in the discussion of great clutch players. Can't say I've heard too many people actually call him the greatest clutch player ever, though.

                  Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                  I think the true definition of clutch is being able to take over games and will your teams to victory like MJ and Bird did.
                  And that's the reason why. There are too many guys like Jordan, Magic and Bird who were bigger clutch players, easy.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204


                    When your "best player" relies on a triple-screen and precision passing just to get his shot, you've got a great Pacers' team of the mid-to-late-1990s (Jackson, Jalen and Derrick with the passing; Dale, Tony, Derrick and Rik with the triple screens; Rik and Jalen -and to a lesser extent, Mullin, Perkins, Jackson and Best- with the offensive presence to take some pressure off Reggie; Dale and Tony to control the paint and boards; Derrick, Dale and Tony to cover for defensive weaknesses from Reggie, Jackson, Jalen and Rik; etc.)

                    The one thing the Pacers had during Reggie's prime was a well-oiled, perhaps overachieving team. What they didn't have was one player that could take over a game by himself, scoring at-will. Reggie could take over a game at times, but he needed triple-screens and Jackson's passing to do so. In other words, the entire team was built around maximizing Reggie's strenghts. Guys like Derrick, Jackson, Tony and Rik happily (well, until Tony wanted to start they were happy) set aside individual agendas in order to make that a true team.

                    I think your premise is really flawed. I've always thought that Reggie's surrounding cast was superior to Jordan's. I thought Pippen was overrated because Jordan made everyone around him better. All-star, absolutely. All-NBA/ Dream-team worthy and one of the fifty best of all time? No way. Rodman and Grant were helpful but limited. Harper, Kerr, Paxson, Brown, Kukoc, Armstrong, etc. were all just role players that complemented Jordan and happened to play the best ball of thier careers feasting off his table scraps.

                    I know you love Reggie and that's fine, but you spend a lot of time disrespecting the rest of Reggie's teams without logic or reason to back it up. I can understand guys from that team like Derrick driving Peck to call him "Satan" or my impatience with Dale "The original Oven Mitts" Davis and Travis "All he does is just pound the damn ball" Best. But that was truly a "team", the "whole" was greater than "the sum of the parts" not just a collection of individual pieces - which is one of the most common criticisims of the current Pacers *and* many of the other teams in the leauge.

                    I agree with Will. If I need a shot in less than two seconds, or if I need a three-pointer, I'm going to Reggie (assuming Jerry West is not available). Otherwise, I'm not picking Reggie, but I'll probably pick that prick that wore #33 for the Green Guys. Worst case scenario, he's double-teamed and he gives it to that prick that wore #32 for the Green Guys.


                    I could not agree more

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                      Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                      I agree with everything you said, except that about Pippen.

                      Pippen proved he was one of the top players in the game when MJ was out in 1993-1994 and most of 1994-1995. Pippen led the Bulls to game 7 against the heavily favored New York Knicks in 1994. Pippen in his prime was one of the best players in the game. But outside of Pip, like you said, the Bulls role players were just average players that looked good because Jordan made them look good.
                      I've slept since then, but I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right: In 1992, there were three forwards in the NBA to average 19, 7, and 7. (Maybe it was 19-5-5, don't have time to look it up.) Two of them played on the dream team (Bird, Pippen). The third guy played for the Pacers: Chuck Person.

                      If Chuck didn't belong on the Dream Team, and I'm not saying he did, then neither did Scottie. Because Chuck didn't put up those numbers playing alongside Jordan. He, like Bird, did it against the oppenent's defensive focus.

                      When I play word-association, Scottie Pippen matches over-rated. As I said above, All-star, yes. Dream-teamer/ 50 greatest, no.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                        Chuck person averaged 18.5 points, 4.7 assists, and 5.3 rebounds in 1991-1992. Never did Chuck average 5 assists.

                        Bird averaged 20.2 points, 9.6 rebounds, and 6.8 assists

                        Pip averaged 21 points, 7.7 rebounds, and 7 assists

                        Chuck was close to Pippen, but Pippen was a little more complete of a player than Chuck Person was. Just a tiny, tiny bit better. I wish I would have been able to watch Chuck play, but I'm too young of a Pacers fan to be able to remember his time here.

                        I was mainly responding to your questioning of Pip of being All-NBA. I think Pip warranted his all nba selection in 1993-1994 when he was the leader of the Bulls, and took them to 7 games against the mighty Knicks in the conference semis.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                          nevermind pippen was one of the greatest defensive players in history. In that category alone, there's a gap between him and person the size of mexico.

                          I suppose being able to guard 4 positions on defense, and play 4 positions on offense, is overrated......

                          The guy once led his team in FIVE statistical categories. Points, blocks, assists, rebounds, and steals.

                          In his one full year without Jordan, Pippen finished 2nd in MVP voting.

                          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


                          • #43
                            Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                            So, do we agree that BOTH Jordan and Pippen were better than Reggie?

                            Good.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                              Originally posted by A-Train
                              You can, without a doubt, every time, say Jordan was better than Reggie.

                              Good grief.....

                              A better question might be.... who was better... Reggie or Scottie?
                              No u just cant say that.. against EVERY player in BBall history u can say that MJ was better than any Shooting Guard but not Reggie... Regg possesed something that MJ would only dream OF to be best at... Shooting... Thats a talent u only get borned with and Reggie was the best player from SG position BASED ON SHOOTING.. MJ was the best BASED ON SLASHING.. Both the most Productive/Effective SGs on offense in NBA History... Its just like that!

                              Scottie better than Reggie? Well, he just had OK offense and was a great Defensive player hangin with the best Player and one of the best Teams and Coachs in NBA History... Why not then just compare Toni Kukoc vs Reggie if u gona go after accomplishment because we all know that Pippen would probably never be a Hall Of Famer if he went to another team and with no rings... because we all know that there were better SmallForwards than him in NBA that never reached the Hall Of Fame....

                              Reggie reached the HOF without any rings or without any powerfull team.. since he IS infact the 2nd best Scorer in NBA History from SG Position and the BEST Shooter ever and best Clutch shooter ever... and he is still underrated and by his own Fans aswell... :shakehead

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                                odd, i could have sworn jordan holds the finals record for most threes in a half......

                                oh wait, he does.

                                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