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

An answer for Fortaz......

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

  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by Peck
    In the Bonzi Wells thread he asked me:

    peck....i respect u...and thats why i ask this question....

    when u speak of artest....its like u become someone other than urself....

    u dont speak of opponents players the way you do of artest...in fact u never speak like u do when u discuss artest....its just so, so far out of character for u....

    why?....theres a fine line between love and hate, i know....but its almost like the sheer mention of artest seems to just hit a button and u become some other person....the obvious negative emotion u feel towards him just seems to be so out of character....

    and i cant understand, why...these types of emotions are usually only reserved for very personal relationships....its almost like u react like a woman scorned would....but im assuming thats far from the truth....

    so, again, im curious....why is it so personal with u where ron is concerned versus ur typical take on all other players and issues-a usually fairly unbiased and rational approach....im just very intriqued how a basketball player of any kind can evoke such a dramatic, somewhat irrational response from someone that appears to be just the opposite....

    so again, i ask with all due respect....why?
    maybe ill think twice before i ask u another question

    seriously, let me try to summarize, maybe it will allow my head to quit spinning...

    what i really got from u whole response was this....
    deep down...u really like the guy...or at least really really liked the guy at one time...

    the reason its so personal for u is u allowed urself to trust him....to like him...to put faith in him....to put hope in him....

    and he let u down....he failed u...a number of times...

    so its much safer to not trust him anymore....and continually validate that decision by pointing out all of his continued behavioral issues...

    and its definitely not safe to allow that he might actually be improving, because that would mean that u would have to reconsider putting trust in him and that would be risky....

    so u would really just prefer to not hear anything that might cause u to question that decision or even revisit it...its much safer to just leave things the way they are....outwardly dislike ron and give zero chance for reversing that decision....

    and i wasted a ton of bandwidth figuring that out....and i hope u will at least consider not hating him...and more importantly really understand what appears to being going on with him...as well as ur 'relationship with him'...

    Comment


    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by foretaz
      by your own words u said that u thought he had gotten better in 2003-04...if ud like ill dig them up...u just said them a bit earlier....nevertheless...

      i disagree with u on the purpose of the thread...i had asked peck why it seemed he was so out of character when discussing artest...why he appeared to have such a deep seated disdain for ron....

      to say that what he does in the future makes u right...is a very telling statement...

      personally, since hes a member of the pacers, i would hope that even if u feel the way that u do...that u would at least u would hope that u would be wrong....but it doesnt appear by that statement that that is the case...sorry to hear that...

      personally, id always prefer things work out the best for people...even if i have my doubts....especially when the people involved obviously have deep seated troubling issues....

      but i wish u luck and appreciate u taking the time to offer ur contributions...they were well stated and well thought out...thx
      Well, for the Pacers' sake I'd like to be wrong but I won't be. Its not my fault they are too stubborn to cut thier losses.

      I wish him luck the best of luck with another team. He's a heck of a talent; too bad he's wasted it.

      Jay's_Wife@Section204 is standing over my shoulder, telling me I'm too pessimistic... I guess I shouldn't show her the results of the poll.
      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: An answer for Fortaz......

        Originally posted by vapacersfan
        *Cue the music*

        Why cant we be friends, why cant we be friends.........

        *GROUP HUG*






        Bball :1outtaher
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
          Well, for the Pacers' sake I'd like to be wrong but I won't be. Its not my fault they are too stubborn to cut thier losses.

          I wish him luck the best of luck with another team. He's a heck of a talent; too bad he's wasted it.

          Jay's_Wife@Section204 is standing over my shoulder, telling me I'm too pessimistic... I guess I shouldn't show her the results of the poll.
          i might tend to agree with jays wife....while i understand where the pessimism might come from i still cant help but hope that some of u try to have a bit more open mind...and just realize he plays for the team u love....and realize that there are much more qualified people than u and i who have a lot more indepth knowledge of the situation making the decisions....

          Comment


          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by foretaz
            i might tend to agree with jays wife....while i understand where the pessimism might come from i still cant help but hope that some of u try to have a bit more open mind...and just realize he plays for the team u love....and realize that there are much more qualified people than u and i who have a lot more indepth knowledge of the situation making the decisions....
            The funny thing is... over time... a lot of the complaints and questions of reasoned posters end up showing they were right all along (or at least onto something).

            Sometimes, money plays more of role into why a player is held onto (or traded) than simply the hierarchy's "more indepth knowledge of the situation" (as it pertains to basketball).

            As fans, we don't have to worry about the money so we can discuss what is best for the on the court product without concerning ourselves with what it does to the bottom line. Some of us would even argue that we are considering the bottom line but being less short-sighted about it. But then, as fans, we can do that. Gambling on spending more money with the idea of a championship taking care of the bottom line is a gamble that we don't have to worry how it will affect our wallet (hmmmm except at the ticket booth).


            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
              Ron is a good player, but he doesn't have Duncan or Lebron type importance. Even if Ron was as great as Duncan or Lebron, he would still not be worth the trouble.


              So far, no NBA team has ever won an NBA championship with Ron Artest on their squad. Believe it or not, a team is going to win the 2005 title without Ron on their team. I have an odd hunch that there will be future titles won without the great Artest. The Indiana Pacers made it to the finals once without him. I know, I know....It's hard to believe a team could win it all without a player thats as "amazing" as Ron is, and without a player that doesnt have Ron's "freakish" physical talents.
              nevermind

              Comment


              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                So you're saying that Duncan and Lebron aren't worth a lot of trouble. If you want to win a championship they are

                Your second paragraph I've quoteds is nonsensical. Other have said the same thing, and it makes no sense to.

                Duncan and Lebron so far have had no problems. I wasn't speaking of them specifically, I was speaking hypothetically. Meaning that, even if a player had their skill level, but caused the problems that Ron has.....I don't think they'd be worth it.....Obviously, you disagree.

                Let me explain the second paragraph. I wrote that in response to the tone I get from Ron supporters that "if the Pacers lose Ron, they definitely won't be winning." I'm not quoting anyone, that's just the overall message I get. I get the impression that some think the Pacers are eternally damned if Ron gets traded out of here(I don't think he will). I'm just giving my opinion that if the Pacers tried something else out, something without Ron, that I think they'd be fine.

                Unclebuck, I really do hope I am eating major crow a year from now. I hope I'm totally wrong. I hope that Ron causes no problems, plays his *** off, and we have a successfull season. I hope I'm not right about this, but I just have the negative hunch that he is always going to be a problem solver.

                In the end, we both just want what's best for the Pacers. And all we want is the Pacers to win basketball games....and eventually a title. We just have 2 different approaches.

                Obviously, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

                Comment


                • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                  I agree that's nonsense. I've always chuckled at that, because its factually true but its also true that no team has won a championship with LBJ either.

                  But its also nonsense to say this guy, who hasn't really won anything at any level, is so crucial to the Pacers' championship hopes.

                  Stephen Jackson has a ring, and he's less volatile than Ron, and he was also - what - the fourth option on that Spurs team? He had some big games, but they didn't depend on him to be a second or third option (and they had GREAT leaders in Duncan and Robinson to keep him in line.)

                  I suppose if the Pacers were reconstructed so that Ron wasn't the second/third most important player (depending on your opinion of Tinsley) but instead he was the fourth or fifth most important player, then that would increase the Pacers' currently slim chances of winning a championship with him.

                  Oops, I'm supposed to stay out of here. Sorry.
                  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: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    nevermind


                    Sorry, I read and quoted it before you erased it. I can erase my reply if you like.

                    Comment


                    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck
                      Does Artest not get any credit for working on his game. His improvement since his Bulls days or even since his first year or so as a Pacer has been nothing short of remarkable. He has made himself a star player. What does that show us about his character. Many of you seem to be saying well yes Ron is a great talent, but he was always a great talent, No he wasn't.
                      Great point.

                      Ron's hard work and understanding of how to play the game are also signs of intelliegence, something many of these evaluators of Artest's character also imply he lacks.

                      I have to laugh though at an irony:

                      Peck hates Artest, he says, because many on this board excuse Ron for his sins; I defend Artest, partly, because many on this board make judgements about Ron that I do not think are fair or accurate.

                      I suspect the truth about Ron is somewhere in the middle. Ron is not an evil bully, nor is he a saint.

                      I can only say I have met the man twice now outside of a basketball setting or public appearance and both times were positive experiences. Ron is not in the slightest intimidating. And I can be intimated by celebrities pretty easily. Unassuming, but friendly enough, would be an accurate description.

                      I'm an old guy, so maybe I get a pass from Ron. But I don't think that is the case. For those of you old enough to know Hallie Bryant, IU great from Indianapolis and Harlem Globetrotter legend and front man, chatting with Ron Artest reminded me of when I first met a young Hallie Bryant. There is that same charisma. A high likability quotient. Hallie is more verbal, but Ron has that same ease of accessibility and genuinness that have served Hallie so well.

                      Just wanted to make that observation in hopes of making the point that there really is a middle ground here about Ron Artest that some might miss.

                      Comment


                      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                        Sorry, I read and quoted it before you erased it. I can erase my reply if you like.


                        No that it all right, I deleted it because I really didn't like what I posted. But no problem

                        Comment


                        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Originally posted by Bball
                          The funny thing is... over time... a lot of the complaints and questions of reasoned posters end up showing they were right all along (or at least onto something).

                          Sometimes, money plays more of role into why a player is held onto (or traded) than simply the hierarchy's "more indepth knowledge of the situation" (as it pertains to basketball).

                          As fans, we don't have to worry about the money so we can discuss what is best for the on the court product without concerning ourselves with what it does to the bottom line. Some of us would even argue that we are considering the bottom line but being less short-sighted about it. But then, as fans, we can do that. Gambling on spending more money with the idea of a championship taking care of the bottom line is a gamble that we don't have to worry how it will affect our wallet (hmmmm except at the ticket booth).


                          -Bball
                          i guess i dont understand this concept of a fan wanting to be right...i understand fans wanting to win championships...wanting to win games...but wanting to be right about a player they feel is a distraction on creates disruptions on the team they hold in such high esteem? i dont get that...i think i would want to be wrong on that..not right...

                          and if this is some sort of consolation to some...to be able to say, i knew it would happen...well...that speaks to me of much more different issues...

                          we all hate to be disappointed as fans...and losing is ultimately what does that....and i would venture to say that most all of the detractors of artest would be ecstatic if we won a championship with him....and say that they never wouldve thought it possible....

                          but as long as we dont, instead of grieving a loss, they can just blame it on ron and say i told u so....and take some sort of consolance in being right....

                          that, to me....is lame.....and almost cowardly....even borderline on being a poor sport...but thats just my opinion....and i dont expect to have everyone agree....

                          Comment


                          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            I suppose if the Pacers were reconstructed so that Ron wasn't the second/third most important player (depending on your opinion of Tinsley) but instead he was the fourth or fifth most important player, then that would increase the Pacers' currently slim chances of winning a championship with him.


                            Ron a 4th or 5th most important player. I don't see how that is possible. He's too good to be that far down the pecking order. Unless he's on a dream team. This is an interesting question is there a team in the league where Ron would be anything less than the 2nd most important player on the team. Add him to any team and I would argue that Ron would be no worse than the 2nd most important player.

                            Comment


                            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              Ron a 4th or 5th most important player. I don't see how that is possible. He's too good to be that far down the pecking order. Unless he's on a dream team. This is an interesting question is there a team in the league where Ron would be anything less than the 2nd most important player on the team. Add him to any team and I would argue that Ron would be no worse than the 2nd most important player.

                              I agree that Ron won't ever be a 4th or 5th most important player.

                              But I can give you teams that have 2 more important players......IMO

                              Miami Heat....I really don't see how you can say Ron is more important than Shaq or Wade, no matter how good you think Ron is.

                              Pheonix Suns...I could argue that Nash, Amare, and Marion are all better players, but someone else could say that ROn is better than all 3.

                              Detroit Pistons.....if you added Ron, I'd still say that Rip, Chauncey, Ben and Sheed are more important to that team

                              Houston Rockets....whether Ron is better or not, Yao Ming determines that teams success. And I think we can all agree that TMAC is a better player

                              Comment


                              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                                Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                                I agree that Ron won't ever be a 4th or 5th most important player.

                                But I can give you teams that have 2 more important players......IMO

                                Miami Heat....I really don't see how you can say Ron is more important than Shaq or Wade, no matter how good you think Ron is.

                                Pheonix Suns...I could argue that Nash, Amare, and Marion are all better players, but someone else could say that ROn is better than all 3.

                                Detroit Pistons.....if you added Ron, I'd still say that Rip, Chauncey, Ben and Sheed are more important to that team

                                Houston Rockets....whether Ron is better or not, Yao Ming determines that teams success. And I think we can all agree that TMAC is a better player
                                Pistons are such a strange team (I mean that in a good way) it is too difficult to figure out a pecking order with them.

                                Suns: I think Ron is better than Marion, no doubt in my mmind about that. He'd be #3 there.

                                Heat: Ron would be #3 there for now

                                Rockets: I think Ron is a better tplayer than Yao, so I'd say he'd be number 2 there.

                                But how many teams would Ron be the most important player. lets not take into account the distractions just for fun. Wow this list is longer than I thought. This is about every team in the league

                                Hawks
                                Bobcats
                                Grizzles
                                Blazers
                                Jazz
                                Nuggets
                                Mavs - yes more important than Dirk
                                Clippers
                                Warriors
                                Kings
                                Bucks
                                Bulls
                                Celtics
                                Raptors
                                Knicks
                                Wizards
                                Hornets
                                Magic
                                Pacers - what?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X