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 Best Player championship belt: 1972

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    The Best Player championship belt: 1972

    1972

    Reigning belt holder: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

    NBA Champion: Los Angeles Lakers
    ABA Champion: Indiana Pacers
    NBA MVP: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    ABA MVP: Artis Gilmore
    NBA Finals MVP: Wilt Chamberlain
    ABA Finals MVP: Freddie Lewis
    NBA Scoring champ: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (34.8)
    ABA Scoring champ: Charlie Scott (34.6)
    NBA PER champ: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (29.9)
    ABA PER champ: Artis Gilmore (26.6)

    The candidates:

    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar- Already on top of the world at age 24, Kareem followed the most successful season of his career with his best individual performance, averaging a career-best 34.8 points, while finishing 3rd in rebounds at 16.6 and 2nd in FG% at .574. His champion Bucks only dipped slightly during the season as well despite losing Oscar for 2/3 of the season, finishing a strong 63-19, and earning Kareem his 2nd straight league MVP. Still, his season would boil down to a conference finals matchup with one of the greatest teams of all time, the 1972 Lakers. Despite individually dominating his matchup with with (33.7 points per game, including a 40-point salvo in game 2 and 37 in the elimination game 5), the Lakers were simply too balanced and too good as his champion Bucks were run off the floor in 5 games.

    Jerry West- Still ringless at age 33, it appeared the window had been slammed shut on Jerry and the old Lakers. Then new coach Bill Sharman breathed life back into them, using Jerry as the head of the spear. The uptemo attack worked wonders for Jerry as he did his best Bob Cousy impersonation, leading the NBA in assists with a career-best 9.5 while still averaging 25.8 points on 48% shooting. Named to the all-defensive team and the all-NBA 1st team for the 3rd straight season while engineering a 69-13 season out of LA, Jerry West finally was experiencing his dream season. Jerry led LA with 28.5ppg in a first round weep of the Bulls, then a team-best 25 points in the clinching game 5 against the Bucks. The finals against a gimpy knicks team was more of a formality than a competition, but Jerry made his contribution with just under 20 points, 9 assists plus 4 rebounds as the Lakers took the title in 5 games and Jerry West left the finals with a win for the first time in 8 tries.

    Wilt Chamberlain: Much like Jerry West, Wilt looked like the league had passed him by in 1972. His scoring averaged had cratered, he was no longer the league's most dominant center and at 35 there was little reason to believe he had anything left in the tank. Then Bill Sharman took over and in a stroke of brilliance, he challenged Wilt to duplicate Bill Russell, dominate the paint defensively and forget about his offensive numbers. And simple-minded Wilt responded to being challenged, as he always did. Thus, Wilt 3.0 was born. For the first time in Wilt's career, he averaged under 20 points at just 14.8, albeit shooting a league-best 64.8% as a safety valve whenever teams overplayed West or Gail Goodrich on the perimeter. His rebounding jumped to a league-best 19.2, and the Lakers for Wilt's efforts went from a medicore defensive team in 1971 to the league's best. With Wilt controlling the defensive backboards and throwing great outlet passes, the Lakers often scored before he ever crossed halfcourt. LA ran off a league-record 69 wins, including 33 in a row. They crushed opponents by a record 10.5 points per 100 possessions, easily surpassing the best efforts by Wilt or even Russell's teams in the 1960's. Though Wilt even by his own admission could not keep up with a much younger Kareem in the conference finals, he didn't have to, shutting down the paint for everyone else and allowing his teammates to collectively dominate the champs. Wilt did turn back the clock a little in the finals against a soft Knicks middle, repeatedly smashing Jerry Lucas to the tune of three 20/20 performances in 5 games, including 24 points and 29 rebounds in the clinching game 5 as Wilt won his second ring, and his first Finals MVP trophy.

    Julius Erving: Following Spencer Haywood's lead of underclassmen leaving school to join the ABA, 21-year old UMAss junior Julius Erving signed with the ABA powerhouse Virginia squires in 1971. By the end of the 71-72 season, he was not only the best player on the team, but the best player in the ABA. Starting off a bit slow, the super-athletic 6'7" forward averaged 27.8 points, finishing 5th in the league behind more heralded fellow rookie Artis Gilmore and his own teammate, Charlie Scott. He was clearly the most efficient player on his team however, as his PER of 23.9 placed him 4th. Artis finished 1st. Despite playing mostly small forward, Erving even finished 3rd in the league with 15.7 boards. However, he was bested by Artis there as well, and while Erving finished 2nd team all-ABA and first team all-rookie, Gilmore took home the rookie of the year trophy, as well as the ABA's MVP. Then Charlie Scott left the ABA to join the Phoenix suns with just 2 weeks left in the season, and Erving exploded in the postseason. He tore into the Floridians in the first round with a 37.8 average, including 53 in game 3 of a 4-game sweep. Then in the conference finals against the Nets, he went up against future hall of famer Rick Barry and outplayed him, averaging 30.7 in that series and outscoring him head-to-head in 4 of the 7 games, including a game-high 35 in game seven. It wasn't enough as the Nets won the east 4-3 over the Squires, but Erving had served notice. His playoff averages of 33.3 points, 20.4 rebounds both easily surpassed the rest of the league, his 6.5 assists was second-best, and he was by far its most efficient weapon with a PER of 30.4.
    10
    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    70.00%
    7
    Jerry West
    10.00%
    1
    Wilt Chamberlain
    20.00%
    2
    Julius Erving
    0.00%
    0

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Kstat; 08-01-2017, 01:14 PM.

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

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The Best Player championship belt: 1972

    I would like to take this opportunity to point out the MVP of the ABA Finals...Freddie Lewis.

    His number should be hanging from the rafters at The Fieldhouse.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The Best Player championship belt: 1972

      Wilt reinventing himself three times and taking a lesser offensive role helped the Lakers win it all. Jerry West and Kareem were more talented at this time, but Wilt's defense anchored the streak and enabled his teammates to thrive. He sorta got out of the way.



      I love how Jerry and Wilt refer to themselves in the 3rd person. And we think current NBA players have egos.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The Best Player championship belt: 1972

        Wanted to vote for Wilt, but couldn't for the same reason I couldn't vote for Russell over Wilt in some previous polls. Too hard for me to vote against the NBA's all-time scorer in his highest scoring season. 1972 was certainly Wilt's best season in LA but Kareem was so good I can't make a great case for Wilt being a better player at this point.
        Last edited by Kstat; 08-01-2017, 04:21 PM.

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

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

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The Best Player championship belt: 1972

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Wanted to vote for Wilt, but couldn't for the same reason I couldn't vote for Russell over Wilt in some previous polls. Too hard for me to vote against the NBA's all-time scorer in his highest scoring season. 1972 was certainly Wilt's best season in LA but Kareem was so good I can't make a great case for Wilt being a better player at this point.
          I don't think you would be making a bad choice by voting for Wilt, Kareem or West. I don't think Dr. J was quite in their category yet.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The Best Player championship belt: 1972

            Kareem was otherwordly at this time.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The Best Player championship belt: 1972

              I voted for KAJ, he was so KAJ-ish. Dude was amazing late in his career, after he lost his athletic ability. He was just unworldly as a young guy. Athletic, skilled, smart, the whole thing.

              Did like the Lakers this year. You can make a case for this being the best Laker team of all time, which is saying something.

              Comment

              Previous template Next
              Working...
              X