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

Artis Gilmore

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Artis Gilmore

    the A-train was truly a stud....for those of us that had the chance to see him play, most all would agree he was about as good of a center as has ever played.....unbelievably mild mannered for such a dominating force.....

    this is a very good read with a couple of pacer legends prominently mentioned and quoted....


    http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/gilmore_friedman.htm



    Still waiting for Hall of Fame call
    by David Friedman / July 5, 2005

    Here is a question that is guaranteed to stump your friends: Who is the NCAA Division I career leader in rebounds per game average? After they round up the usual suspects – Wilt, Russell, Kareem – you can provide a hint: this player's college career ended after Kareem's did. When they give up after you tell them that the answer is not Walton or Shaq, be prepared for some surprised looks when you say, "Artis Gilmore, 22.7 rpg."

    Gilmore led unheralded Jacksonville to the 1970 NCAA Championship game against perennial powerhouse UCLA. Coached by the legendary John Wooden, the Bruins had already won three straight titles en route to a record seven consecutive championships. Gilmore had 19 points and 16 rebounds as Jacksonville gave the Bruins their toughest battle yet in a title game before succumbing 80-69. He was a Consensus All-America 1st Team selection in 1971, but Jacksonville lost a first round NCAA Tournament game to Western Kentucky on a last second shot. Gilmore led Jacksonville to a 48-6 record during those two seasons, averaging 24.3 ppg to go along with his record rebounding average.

    He had an immediate impact upon joining the ABA's Kentucky Colonels for the 1971-72 season, winning Rookie of the Year and MVP honors after ranking tenth in scoring (23.8 ppg) and leading the league with 17.8 rpg, .598 field goal shooting, 3666 minutes played (43.6 mpg) and an ABA record 422 blocked shots (5.0 bpg). Kentucky improved from 44-40 in 1970-71 to a league record 68-16. Gilmore posted virtually identical numbers in the postseason, but a hot-shooting Rick Barry led the New York Nets to a 4-2 upset victory over the Colonels.

    In 1972-73 the Colonels went 56-28 and advanced to the ABA Finals, where they lost in seven games to their arc, the Indiana Pacers – Gilmore averaged 22.1 ppg, 17.3 rpg, 5.3 apg and 4.0 bpg for the series. During the regular season, Gilmore again led the ABA in rebounding (17.6 rpg), field goal percentage (.559) and blocks (3.1 bpg) and ranked second in minutes played (3502) and tenth in scoring (20.8 ppg).

    Darnell Hillman, a great shot blocker who played forward and center for the Pacers, will never forget his encounters with Gilmore.

    "If I wanted to be anyone other than Darnell I wanted to be Artis' size and still have my jumping ability. Every time I walked out on the floor with him, I always challenged him as best I could-6-9 versus 7-2. Artis would block my dunk shots all the time and that was the key that really turned me on to go back after him and block his dunks. So that was a rivalry right there between Artis and I."

    Hillman learned the value of preparation and anticipation by playing against Gilmore and practicing against Indiana teammate Mel Daniels, a two-time ABA MVP.

    "I gave away a lot of pounds and inches, so I had to be very clever. That came from playing against Mel in practice.When Artis decided to throw it down, he was going to throw it down and I had to be there to catch it before he really got a full head of steam going to throw it down."

    Daniels, the director of player personnel for the Pacers since 1996, offers this scouting report of Gilmore:

    "He was very efficient, a very good offensive basketball player, could defend, could block shots, run very well, and score on the block. If you look at some of the guys who are in the Hall of Fame, he should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. The guy has proven himself in both leagues."

    Kentucky went 53-31 in 1973-74, sweeping Larry Brown's Carolina Cougars in the first round of the playoffs before being swept by Julius Erving's Nets in the second round. Gilmore led the ABA in rebounding (18.3 rpg), ranked first in minutes (3502) and second in blocked shots (3.4 bpg).

    The Colonels hired Hubie Brown as head coach before the 1974-75 season. Gilmore echoes what teammate Joe Hamilton told this writer at the ABA Reunion: Brown's encyclopedic basketball knowledge and meticulous game planning are the hoops equivalent to the football wizardry of New England Patriots' coach Bill Belichick.

    Gilmore says of Brown, "He was a very detail-oriented coach and as a result when we competed against teams he had statistics and reports about some of the things that were successful against those particular teams. In a sense, he was ahead of his time by having such detailed scouting reports."

    That may not seem like a big deal now, but only a few years earlier Bill Fitch and the Cleveland Cavaliers made expansion draft selections on the basis of statistics found on basketball cards.

    In 1974-75, Gilmore ranked first in minutes (3493), second in rebounding (16.2 rpg), second in field goal percentage (.580), second in blocks (3.1 bpg) and sixth in scoring (23.6 ppg). The Colonels finished with a 58-26 record, including a 22-3 mark in the last 25 games. Kentucky stormed to the title with a 12-3 postseason run. Gilmore ranked first in playoff rebounding (17.6 rpg) and was among the postseason leaders in scoring, field goal percentage and blocked shots. He averaged 25 ppg, 21 rpg and 1.2 bpg in the 4-1 win over Indiana in the ABA Finals. In a game three victory he rang up 41 points and 28 rebounds and in the game five series clincher he had 28 points and 31 rebounds.

    Kentucky's success on the court did not lead to financial stability for the franchise, so owner John Y. Brown sold star forward Dan Issel to the Baltimore Claws for $500,000. The Claws franchise was in much worse shape financially than Kentucky and could not pay the $500,000, so the deal was reworked with the Denver Nuggets paying the $500,000 for Issel and compensating Baltimore by shipping them Dave Robisch.

    Losing Issel was a big blow to the Colonels, who fell to 46-38 in 1975-76. They beat Indiana in a first round mini-series and pushed the 60-24 Nuggets to seven games in the next round. Gilmore had his best professional
    scoring average (24.6 ppg, fourth in the league) and ranked first in rebounding (15.5 rpg), second in field goal percentage (.552), second in minutes (3286) and third in blocks (2.4 bpg).

    The NBA agreed to merge with four of the remaining ABA teams after the 1975-76 season. The owners of the Spirits of St. Louis and Kentucky Colonels received financial settlements in lieu of joining the combined league. A dispersal draft was held to allocate the ABA players whose teams folded and Gilmore was selected first overall by the Chicago Bulls.

    The Bulls started 3-14 in the 1976-77 season, but closed on a 20-4 run to qualify for the playoffs with a 44-38 record. Chicago lost 2-1 to Bill Walton and the Portland Trail Blazers, who went on to win the championship. Gilmore ranked fourth in rebounding (13.0 rpg) and blocked shots (2.5 bpg) and tenth in field goal percentage (.522).

    During Gilmore's Chicago years he perennially ranked among the league leaders in rebounding, blocked shots and field goal percentage and finished as high as ninth in scoring (23.7 ppg in 1978-79), but the Bulls never surrounded Gilmore with enough talent to be a contender.

    Before the 1982-83 season, the Bulls traded Gilmore to the San Antonio Spurs, one of the four ABA teams that joined the NBA during the merger. Now the Spurs had a formidable inside-outside duo with Gilmore and All-NBA guard George Gervin. The Spurs won a then franchise-record 53 games and made it to the Western Conference Finals, losing to the defending champion Lakers 4-2. Gilmore led the league in field goal percentage (.626) while ranking fourth in rebounding (12.0 rpg) and fifth in blocks (2.3 bpg).

    Injuries to Gilmore and point guard Johnny Moore sent the Spurs plummeting to 37-45 in 1983-84. Even in a down year, Gilmore still led the NBA in field goal percentage (.631) and ranked fifth in blocks (2.1 bpg). He
    averaged enough rebounds to rank in the top ten, but did not play in enough games or have enough total rebounds to qualify.

    Gilmore ranked in the top ten in field goal percentage (.623; second), blocks (2.1; seventh) and rebounds (10.4 rpg; tenth) in 1984-85, but the Spurs were knocked off in the first round of the playoffs.

    Age began to take a toll in 1985-86 and for the first time in 15 professional seasons Gilmore failed to average at least 10 rpg. He still managed to rank second in field goal percentage (.618). Gilmore also ranked second in field goal percentage in 1986-87 (.597) as a 37-year-old player in his second to last season.

    Hall of Famer Rick Barry faced Gilmore in the ABA and the NBA and had this to say about the big man:

    "Artis Gilmore was incredibly agile and was just an amazing shot blocker. In fact, I've had him on my radio show a couple times, and I think that he stopped blocking some of the shots because they were calling goaltending on him. I don't think that anybody had ever seen anything like that and they figured that he had to be goaltending, that you can't possibly block somebody's jump shot."

    Although Gilmore is listed in Alex Sachare's 1997 book The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's 100 Greatest Basketball Players of All-Time, he has not advanced beyond the finalist stage in the induction process (most of the other 99 players profiled in the book who have been retired long enough to be eligible for induction are members of the Hall of Fame).

    When Gilmore finally assumes his rightful place in the Hall of Fame, he will need quite a plaque to detail his accomplishments. Put "Artis Gilmore: Tough, Durable and Consistent" in bold letters at the top and follow it with
    these achievement:

    - NCAA rebounding champion in 1970 and 1971

    - All-time NCAA Division I career rebounding average leader (22.7 rpg)

    - One of five NCAA Division I players with career averages of 20+ ppg and 20+ rpg

    - 1972 ABA MVP and Rookie of the Year

    - ABA regular season single game record 40 rebounds versus New York, 2/3/74

    - Four-time ABA rebounding champion (1972-74, 76)

    - Two-time ABA field goal percentage champion (1972-73)

    - Two-time ABA shot blocking champion (1972-73)

    - 1974 ABA All-Star Game MVP

    - 1975 ABA Playoff MVP

    - Five-time All-ABA 1st Team selection (1972-76)

    - Four-time ABA All-Defensive Team selection (1973-76)

    - Appeared in 670 consecutive ABA/NBA games

    - 11 All-Star selections in 17 ABA/NBA seasons

    - Ranked in the top ten in rebounding in 12 of 17 ABA/NBA seasons

    - Ranked in the top ten in blocked shots in 13 of 17 ABA/NBA seasons

    - Ranked in the top ten in field goal percentage in 15 of 17 ABA/NBA seasons

    - Four-time NBA field goal percentage champion (1981-84)

    - One of seven unanimous selections to the 1997 ABA All-Time Team

    - Ranks first in career ABA/NBA regular season field goal percentage (.582); also holds the NBA (.599) and ABA (.558) career records

    - Ranks third in career ABA/NBA regular season blocked shots (3178)

    - Ranks fifth in career ABA/NBA regular season rebounds (16,330)

    - Ranks 18th in career ABA/NBA regular season points (24,491)
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Artis Gilmore

    The irony of this is that over the weekend I helped my parent clear out stuff from thier house (they are moving) & I came across this giant poster I had of the A-train throwing it down when he was with the Bulls.

    He was always one of my favorite players & it is a shame people don't remember him because IMO he was every bit as good as Ewing & Robinson. Not quite in the Shaq range but when Sam Perkins was asked during the 00 finals if Shaq was the strongest player he'd ever faced he said no, Artis Gilmor was. I think that might not be right but Artis sure had some strength.

    I hope he gets in the hall.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Artis Gilmore

      Wow you played against Shaq and Gilmore?!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Artis Gilmore

        Gilmore was a physically supririor player. He knew his limits better than maybe any player in history. Which is why he was never truly a dominant big man, despite the fact he hardly ever missed.

        He never had any dominant pet moves like every other HOF big man, he wasn't especially quick, he wasn't a great defender, and he never led a team to a championship.

        Gilmore played within himself very well, and he was no doubt an all-star. But was he a cut below Lanier, Malone, Walton, Jabbar, Thurmond, Unseld and Sikma? Definately.

        I'm not sure if he's hall-of-fame worthy, or just an all-star of his era.

        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: Artis Gilmore

          I strongly disagree that Artis was below Lanier & Sikma. I'm taking nothing away from either of these guys but IMO Gilmore was just a much more dominate player. He never had a team around him worth anything in Chicago so he never really had a chance to do anything special in the NBA & by the time he got to San Antonio his knees were shot.

          In Kentucky he had a decent team around him & he went to the ABA finals. Acutally now that I think about it, didn't his team win one ABA crown? I could be wrong there.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Artis Gilmore

            Originally posted by Peck
            I strongly disagree that Artis was below Lanier & Sikma. I'm taking nothing away from either of these guys but IMO Gilmore was just a much more dominate player. He never had a team around him worth anything in Chicago so he never really had a chance to do anything special in the NBA & by the time he got to San Antonio his knees were shot.

            In Kentucky he had a decent team around him & he went to the ABA finals. Acutally now that I think about it, didn't his team win one ABA crown? I could be wrong there.
            yes....they won a title and played in another couple championships i believe...

            to say that he was below that group is just not an informed opinion....at all...if they all were coming out of college at the same time, u take jabbar and maybe walton ahead of him....and thats it....the man was a stud...period....great on both ends of the floor...

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Artis Gilmore

              I'd take Lanier over Gilmore any day of the week. Lanier was a lot more skilled.

              And don't tell me about "informed" opinions, when you still think Jerry West was a point guard.

              If you think he had a HoF ABA career, fine. I'm speaking based on his NBA performance. I never followed the ABA much at all.

              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

              • #8
                Re: Artis Gilmore

                Originally posted by Kstat
                I'd take Lanier over Gilmore any day of the week. Lanier was a lot more skilled.

                And don't tell me about "informed" opinions, when you still think Jerry West was a point guard.

                If you think he had a HoF ABA career, fine. I'm speaking based on his NBA performance. I never followed the ABA much at all.

                ur piston homeritis is showing....lanier was not more skilled than gilmore...it would be the other way around....

                and please dont tell me u still havent figured out that west played point guard for a great number of years on the lakers teams....and if ur gonna bring up stuff...get it right...i said he would start as my point guard any day of the week....jerry was probably one of the earliest true 'combo' guards.....but he played the point many years...so get ur facts straight...it appears not only did u not watch gilmore play with the exception of when he was in san antonio but u didnt watch west play either....

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Artis Gilmore

                  I remember watching the A-Train. The best word to describe him is "sturdy"

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Artis Gilmore

                    Originally posted by Kstat
                    And you're damn right I'd take Lanier over Gilmore. The guy had a ton of basketball skills. He could shoot from 15 feet, he had a nice baby hook, he could pass the ball, if it weren't for Jabbar, Lanier would have been the dominant center for the decade. Gilmore was big and strong, and that was about it. Fine center, but Lanier was a true great.
                    I think you've been hammering home too many of Big Feet Bob's Miller Lites.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Artis Gilmore

                      Sturdy is a good way to describe him.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Artis Gilmore

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        I'd take Lanier over Gilmore any day of the week. Lanier was a lot more skilled.

                        And don't tell me about "informed" opinions, when you still think Jerry West was a point guard.

                        If you think he had a HoF ABA career, fine. I'm speaking based on his NBA performance. I never followed the ABA much at all.
                        I always considered Bob soft. Now don't get me wrong I thought he was a good center but I just always felt he was a little soft to be considered anything above just a good center.

                        Anyway here is the career comparison of Artis vs. Bob.

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...submit=Compare

                        & here is the career avg. per game. Acutually they are a lot closer than I even remember. Bob was the better scorer by one basket a game & Artis was a better rebounder by two.

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...submit=Compare


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Artis Gilmore

                          Jeez, I guess I never really gave much consideration to Gilmore not being HOF.

                          That's surprising, really. IMO, without getting into listing them, he has to be one of the top 10 centers of all time. Where he would rank in that top 10, I don't know.

                          As far as West being a PG or an SG, that's really kind of a moot point, isn't it. He played in an era before such labels existed. They just called 'em guards back then, and both of them were expected to score, defend and distribute.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Artis Gilmore

                            (thread cleaned of debris)
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Artis Gilmore

                              Originally posted by able
                              (thread cleaned of debris)

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X