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

  • #16
    Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

    Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
    I never said Reggie wasn't great, and I'm certainly not dishing him at all.

    But, let's all take our number 31 jerseys off for one second and answer this question.

    I was implying that Reggie was never a top 5 player. If someone would have asked you who the top 5 players in the NBA during any point of Reggie's 18 year career, could you have honestly listed Reggie as one of them?

    Come on.
    Are u talking about accomplishment or overall skill on any position? If you are talking about accomplishment then you are absolutely right... Top5 not really, But he is the best shooter to accomplish the things he done...

    I certainly hope you aren't trying to equate Reggie to Jordan. Reggie would NOT be considered the greatest player in the game had he switched players with MJ, because Reggie simply wasn't as good as MJ.
    If its skill you are rating your players after... then he should be rated as one of the best SGs in History right after Jordan (even Larry Bird said so). Because there are Two kind of offensive Shooting Guards, you have slashers (and MJ was the best ever) and you have shooters (Reggie was no doubt the best ever)...
    You can not say that MJ was better than Reggie and you can not say that Reggie was better than MJ.. Reggie would make MJ look like a 10 year old girl when he outshoots him from just any distance even with his eyes closed, but MJ would kill Reggie on the low post because he is the best slasher ever...

    The stats aren't even close, while you could count on Reggie to hit some big shots, you could always count on MJ in the playoffs to WILL your team to victory. I'm not knocking Reggie, but MJ was the greatest player of the era.
    First of all, Reggie have probably the most Clutch shots made, think about that once. You could not count on MJ in the playoffs to WILL your victory, but you could count on The BULLS... is it so hard to understand that the man had a way better team than Reggie? Whats so hard to understand?

    No matter who MJ played with, he was going to get rings.
    Oh really? What other team did he went to? Washington? did you see any rings there? Think again!

    The players he had by his side were far from "dominant", as you implied. Outside of Pippen, they were all role players. Great players like MJ make role players shine.
    Pippen is a hall of Famer and probably the best Small Forward to play the game, Rodman is probably the best Hustlers ever and a future hall of famer, Toni Kukoc was an incredible shooter, clutch players, passer. And how could i forgot Ron Harper with his defense, Stever Kerr with the best shooting Accuracy... that team hade incredible offensive force, defensive force. All that combined with the best Coach ever?

    Reggie certainly was not alone on offense. Rik Smits was huge during the 1995 playoffs, outplaying Patrick Ewing. Are you forgetting Jalen Rose's scoring ability when he was here?
    Why are u saying this? Rik Smits was a overall good Center, nothing else... was he an all star? Was he a hall of famer? Sure tho! They could manage to something with him and Marc jackson, what about the rest of the team? Doesnt they have to bring something powerfull to?
    Jalen Rose wasnt either an All-Star.... MJ was surrounded by All-Stars and some great players and some underrated players who dominated at both ends of the floor. You cant NEVER compare Pacers team with MJs team...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

      Originally posted by KING JAMES
      i don't really chime in tOo much, but all i can say to that is "WOW" i about choked on my popcorn chicken after reading that.

      i loved watching reggie miller play, and i understand where the bias comes in... but i just watched a player this year in LeBRON JAMES do more statistically in one season then reggie ever did in his career.
      he averaged more points, assist, rebounds, steals, and blocks then reggie ever came close to.

      and with that said he's still light years behind jordan, too me that makes reggie a bit further behind then LeBRON.. now if you want to talk about a body of work, and clutchness- well then it's JORDAN > REGGIE > lebron (incomplete)

      i'm not even saying lebron is on reggie's level, but i do know he is more of a complete all around player then reggie is.

      jordan was an all around player.. reggie was not... but he was darn good.
      Yo

      You are forgetting that only half of it is "skill on the basketball court". The physical tools are necessary but they won't get you anywhere without the mental toughness. The remaining half of it is what you do off the court. The leadership skills, preparation, trusting teammates, help building team chemistry, being mentally tough, getting along with teammates who probably are jealous of you getting all the accolades, etc. There is a lot of off court pressures to deal with when you are an NBA superstar.

      So before you annoint Lebron, let us see how he handles the mental part of it.

      Reggie was no Michael Jordan but he and Patrick Ewing or Charles Barkely never had that second and third scorer/slash rebounder that MJ had. MJ had all the other intangibles(leadership) in addition to "skillz" which the Patrick and Charles lacked but they would have overcome those issues with better talent around them.

      No disrespect to Rik and Jalen but they never brought it every day and did not play on both ends of the court. Don't get me started on Jalen's defense, pouting, etc. He was so bad for team chemistry with all the broken plays. etc. Reggie definitely had a indomitable will and he brought it every night. He was definitely limited in the physical skills but succeded because of the mental part and the preparation.

      Bill Carwright Career Stats (13.2 ppg and 6.3 rpg)
      Rik Smits Career Stats (14.8 ppg and 6.1 rpg)

      and Bill was the not even in the the top three or four players on that Bulls Team. I will admit that Cartwright's stats are skewed by his Knick years but his rebounds were almost the same in the first three of Chicago's championship runs.
      ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

        Originally posted by pacerwaala
        Yo

        You are forgetting that only half of it is "skill on the basketball court". The physical tools are necessary but they won't get you anywhere without the mental toughness. The remaining half of it is what you do off the court. The leadership skills, preparation, trusting teammates, help building team chemistry, being mentally tough, getting along with teammates who probably are jealous of you getting all the accolades, etc. There is a lot of off court pressures to deal with when you are an NBA superstar.

        So before you annoint Lebron, let us see how he handles the mental part of it.

        Reggie was no Michael Jordan but he and Patrick Ewing or Charles Barkely never had that second and third scorer/slash rebounder that MJ had. MJ had all the other intangibles(leadership) in addition to "skillz" which the Patrick and Charles lacked but they would have overcome those issues with better talent around them.

        No disrespect to Rik and Jalen but they never brought it every day and did not play on both ends of the court. Don't get me started on Jalen's defense, pouting, etc. He was so bad for team chemistry with all the broken plays. etc. Reggie definitely had a indomitable will and he brought it every night. He was definitely limited in the physical skills but succeded because of the mental part and the preparation.

        Bill Carwright Career Stats (13.2 ppg and 6.3 rpg)
        Rik Smits Career Stats (14.8 ppg and 6.1 rpg)

        and Bill was the not even in the the top three or four players on that Bulls Team. I will admit that Cartwright's stats are skewed by his Knick years but his rebounds were almost the same in the first three of Chicago's championship runs.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

          I had to stop reading when I got to this.

          You could not count on MJ in the playoffs to WILL your victory, but you could count on The BULLS...

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

            Originally posted by Hicks
            I had to stop reading when I got to this.
            Eh ok? So you really think that MJ would still be the player he is/was today with bad players in his team? I meant it that way, not that MJ sux and that u cant count on him when the game is on the line... MJ was the greatest player in my mind, but i seriously doubt if he had bad team that he would still be loyal to his team and stay and be "counted"? or be that "great" he is/was by switching teams 24 / 7 to chase that Ring. Would people still "count" on him? Not many players are like Reggie.... and i just wanted to say some of the importance from a Team!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

              Even if I thought replacing Jordan with Reggie on that Bulls team still meant the titles (and I am by no means sold on that, but I could see it to an extent), it doesn't make an argument of Reggie being as good or better than Jordan. I think Reggie might have been "just good enough" of a SG to go with those players to win titles. Jordan was "enough and them some more" of what they needed.

              Again, that's if Reggie leading them would have worked. If not, I think the difference between them is still the same.

              I guess what I'm saying is if you were to rate players on a scale of 1 to 10, Jordan would be a 10, Reggie at his best would be an 8.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                Originally posted by 3ptmiller
                Are u talking about accomplishment or overall skill on any position? If you are talking about accomplishment then you are absolutely right... Top5 not really, But he is the best shooter to accomplish the things he done...



                If its skill you are rating your players after... then he should be rated as one of the best SGs in History right after Jordan (even Larry Bird said so). Because there are Two kind of offensive Shooting Guards, you have slashers (and MJ was the best ever) and you have shooters (Reggie was no doubt the best ever)...
                You can not say that MJ was better than Reggie and you can not say that Reggie was better than MJ.. Reggie would make MJ look like a 10 year old girl when he outshoots him from just any distance even with his eyes closed, but MJ would kill Reggie on the low post because he is the best slasher ever...


                First of all, Reggie have probably the most Clutch shots made, think about that once. You could not count on MJ in the playoffs to WILL your victory, but you could count on The BULLS... is it so hard to understand that the man had a way better team than Reggie? Whats so hard to understand?


                Oh really? What other team did he went to? Washington? did you see any rings there? Think again!


                Pippen is a hall of Famer and probably the best Small Forward to play the game, Rodman is probably the best Hustlers ever and a future hall of famer, Toni Kukoc was an incredible shooter, clutch players, passer. And how could i forgot Ron Harper with his defense, Stever Kerr with the best shooting Accuracy... that team hade incredible offensive force, defensive force. All that combined with the best Coach ever?


                Why are u saying this? Rik Smits was a overall good Center, nothing else... was he an all star? Was he a hall of famer? Sure tho! They could manage to something with him and Marc jackson, what about the rest of the team? Doesnt they have to bring something powerfull to?
                Jalen Rose wasnt either an All-Star.... MJ was surrounded by All-Stars and some great players and some underrated players who dominated at both ends of the floor. You cant NEVER compare Pacers team with MJs team...


                Actually, Rik Smits WAS an allstar in 1998. And Mark Jackson was one of the better point guards in the game.

                And I meant that no matter who Jordan was with in his prime, that he was going to win titles. I'm not talking about when he was 38-40 years old with Washington. No player is the same when they're in their late 30's as they were in the early 30's.

                You keep mentioning clutch shots. Yes Reggie made many "clutch" shots, but I'd take Jordan's 6 rings over Reggie's clutch shots.

                Michael Jordan WILLED teams to victory. You could count on him to dominate in must win games.

                Look at the failed must wins in Reggie's career.
                1994: Game 7 against NY
                1995: Game 7 against Orlando(12 points)
                1996: Game 5 against Atlanta(Reggie was hurt and played his *** off )
                1998: Game 7 against Chicago(lost to MJ's bulls)
                1999: Game 6 against NY(an embarassing 8 points)

                2000 was the only year I thought the Pacers played to their total potential. I'm not going to count 1996 since Reggie was out the first 4 games, and gave a heroic effort.

                I'm not knocking Reggie, I just don't think Reggie was able to will wins in must win situations as Jordan was. When the Bulls HAD to win, Jordan took over. Reggie willed the Pacers to must win victories in 2000. That's the only year I thought the Pacers played to their total potential.

                Reggie himself states in his book that in game 7 of the 1995 ECF's against Orlando, that Orlando did a great job defending him, and had someone on him everywhere he was. He only scored 12. Examples like this are the major difference between MJ and Reg. Do you think MJ would have let a team shut him down in a must win situation game 7? No way. MJ was just a much more complete, dominant player than Reggie Miller. I don't think Reggie had the capability to dominate an entire game as MJ did.

                Of course the Bulls had a great supporting cast. Every championship team does. But playing next to players like Jordan or Shaq MAKE you better.

                The purpose of the initial post was not to have a Reggie/Jordan debate(I didn't think there was a debate), but it was to imply that in order for the Pacers to win it all, Jermaine O'Neal must elevate his game, his maturity, and his leadership.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                  Originally posted by 3ptmiller



                  First of all, Reggie have probably the most Clutch shots made, think about that once. You could not count on MJ in the playoffs to WILL your victory, but you could count on The BULLS... is it so hard to understand that the man had a way better team than Reggie? Whats so hard to understand?

                  Thank You!!!! What I've been trying to say!
                  Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

                  Do Not Trade Austin

                  Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
                  Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                    OK.......so Reggie has the most clutch shots ever made, let's look at those shots.

                    1994: 25 fourth quarter points in game 5 against NY......Pacers LOSE the series.

                    1995: 8 points in 8 seconds in game 1 against NY....Pacers win the series in game 7(Pacers had a 3-1 series lead, and almost blew the series)

                    1998: Shot against the Bulls in game 4.....Pacers LOSE series

                    2000: Reggie was awesome, are their any specific shots to remember outside of that late 3 against Milwaukee? No, but Reggie TOOK OVER GAMES, which is much more important than hitting a shot

                    2002: long 3 against NJ, Pacers LOSE series because Reggie was the only one playing that game.

                    2004: 3 against Detroit in game 1, Pacers LOSE the series

                    So what's more important? Hitting some clutch shots, or taking over entire games. A good number of Reggie's most memorable events are in series the Pacers didn't even win. I would rather have Jordan's taking over games and willing series wins, than a good number of "clutch" shots.

                    Reggie was the man in 2000, because that's when he took over. He made sure the Pacers weren't going to lose to Milwaukee in game 5, or NY in game 6. Thats would I would have loved to have seen more in 1994 and 1995, instead of a few "clutch" shots.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                      Originally posted by Kstat
                      And by the way: check out the Spurs. Duncan is just another part of that team now, he doesn't dominate everything. They don't spread it out quite like the pistons do, but they come damn close.
                      I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but this is a little misleading. The only argument about Duncan is whether is the best or the second best basketball player in the world. The fact that he is a good team player hardly diminishes this. Would the Spurs even make the playoffs if they didn't have Duncan? Maybe this year, but they would be out in 4 games. Check out this resume:

                      2-time league MVP
                      2-time finals MVP (the best player on the best team twice-- only Magic and Jordan have done that)
                      All NBA first team every year he has been in the league (the first player since Bird)
                      All Defensive team every year he has been in the league, and on the 1st team every year after his rookie season
                      Rookie of the year

                      I mean, is it even POSSIBLE to have a better personal resume? He's done more in his first 6 years than Jordan, for God's sake. He is hardly just a cog in that machine, he is the engine, the powertrain, and the wheels.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                        Originally posted by Hicks
                        Even if I thought replacing Jordan with Reggie on that Bulls team still meant the titles (and I am by no means sold on that, but I could see it to an extent), it doesn't make an argument of Reggie being as good or better than Jordan. I think Reggie might have been "just good enough" of a SG to go with those players to win titles. Jordan was "enough and them some more" of what they needed.

                        Again, that's if Reggie leading them would have worked. If not, I think the difference between them is still the same.

                        I guess what I'm saying is if you were to rate players on a scale of 1 to 10, Jordan would be a 10, Reggie at his best would be an 8.
                        Ah yes i agree then! peace

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                          Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                          OK.......so Reggie has the most clutch shots ever made, let's look at those shots.

                          1994: 25 fourth quarter points in game 5 against NY......Pacers LOSE the series.

                          1995: 8 points in 8 seconds in game 1 against NY....Pacers win the series in game 7(Pacers had a 3-1 series lead, and almost blew the series)

                          1998: Shot against the Bulls in game 4.....Pacers LOSE series

                          2000: Reggie was awesome, are their any specific shots to remember outside of that late 3 against Milwaukee? No, but Reggie TOOK OVER GAMES, which is much more important than hitting a shot

                          2002: long 3 against NJ, Pacers LOSE series because Reggie was the only one playing that game.

                          2004: 3 against Detroit in game 1, Pacers LOSE the series

                          So what's more important? Hitting some clutch shots, or taking over entire games. A good number of Reggie's most memorable events are in series the Pacers didn't even win. I would rather have Jordan's taking over games and willing series wins, than a good number of "clutch" shots.

                          Reggie was the man in 2000, because that's when he took over. He made sure the Pacers weren't going to lose to Milwaukee in game 5, or NY in game 6. Thats would I would have loved to have seen more in 1994 and 1995, instead of a few "clutch" shots.

                          It takes a lot for you to be satisfied. Doesn't it?
                          ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                            Originally posted by pacerwaala
                            It takes a lot for you to be satisfied. Doesn't it?

                            I'm just giving examples as to why Jordan was the better player, though I had once thought it was something that would never be debated.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                              This is amusing.

                              Anyway, I asked this a while ago...

                              Doesn't Travis Best (my arch-enemy, BTW) have the only Series-winning shot in Pacers/ NBA history?

                              Chuck Person, to the best of my knowledge, had the only other attempt at a series-winning shot in Pacers/ NBA history, back in 1991. And he rushed it even though he had plenty of time.

                              This whole 'clutch' concept always makes me chuckle, because there are plenty of us that remember when Reggie would disappear in the fourth quarter, and Chuck (and later Detlef) was the team's Mr. Clutch. Reggie was in his sixth or seventh season before he was even the first option at crunch time.

                              Rik Smits was supposed to have two chances at series-winning shots in 1996, but Jackson missed him (Rik was held) on both entry passes.

                              Reggie was clutch, no doubt about it. But it was usually "early" in a playoff series. (Exception, Game #5 vs. NJ in 2002, although Kevin Ollie became NJ's best player in the second overtime, negating an opportunity at a series-winning attempt). As much as I hate to admit it, Jordan had his share of series-winning (championship-winning) shots (and series-winning assists when teams sent all five guys at him on the last play.) Jordan, IMO, is the *one* guy that was more 'clutch' than Reggie.

                              Am I forgetting any other series-winning shots/ attempts from the Pacers?

                              Here's an interesting tangent, Derrick and Dale had more clutch series-winning stops on the defensive end of the court.

                              One could argue that Derrick and Dale were 'more clutch' on defense than Reggie was on offense. Of course, for thier first series-winning defensive stop, Patrick was allowed to climb Dale's back for the put-back. But wasn't it Derrick that hit the back-to-back three's in the last two minutes of Game #7 in 1994 to keep it close?
                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: The Pacers have never had that one player

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X