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

Rosen's top PFs

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

  • Rosen's top PFs

    They used to be called hatchet men.

    The blunt edges of their talents hewed out rebounds, screens, defense and the kind of selective brutality essential to any contact sport. They were later referred to as enforcers. However, in today's game, the skills and duties of power forwards cover the entire spectrum of the game.

    No. 1 TIM DUNCAN

    Since the retirement of David Robinson, Tim Duncan has become just a part-time power forward because come crunch-time, Robert Horry plays the four, while TD is the Spurs' center.

    In any case, Duncan's virtues are well known: Nifty post-up moves (with his right-handed jump hook being his supreme weapon), sure-handed rebounding, long-armed defense, alert passes and somewhat overrated jump shooting. Although he uses his elbows as grappling hooks, the Big Fundamental plays with more finesse than actual power. Despite that fact, his ability to deliver in the clutch, resourcefulness and above all, his will to win, put him at the top of this list.


    No. 2 KEVIN McHALE
    Kevin McHale had the most effective variety of low-post moves of any power forward or center. Drop-steps, spins, hooks, duck-unders, face-ups, back-downs, fadeaway and turn-around jumpers — as well as some improvised moves that were beyond categorizing. His unstoppability was evidenced by McHale's leading the league in field goal percentage twice (1986-88, with identical percentages of 60.4).

    He was also an OK passer, great offensive rebounder and adequate presence on the defensive glass. And McHale's defense was every bit as outstanding as his offense. He was listed at 6-foot-10, but with his long arms and high shoulders, McHale played at least five inches taller.

    The Larry Bird-Robert Parrish-Kevin McHale front line is generally considered to be the most dominant of all time — and it was McHale who did most of the heavy lifting that enabled the Celtics to win three championships (1981, '84, '86) during his 13-year tenure in Boston. Indeed, all of McHale's pertinent numbers were higher during the playoffs.

    Although partially hidden in Bird's shadow, McHale was a legitimate franchise player in his own right.


    No. 3 BOB PETTIT
    This guy rendered most of his opponents' numbers powerless. His honors included two MVPs, (1956, '59), one championship ('58), and he was selected to the All-NBA First Team from 1955-64.

    Bob Pettit was a savage rebounder — his career-high was 20.3 per game in 1960-61, and he concluded his 11 seasons (with the Milwaukee/St. Louis Hawks) averaging 16.2. He scored with one-handed sets, mid-range springers, put-backs and hard-nosed drives to the rim. Put Pettit down for a lifetime mark of 26.4 ppg. He was a dependable (if not prolific) passer and a ferocious (if foul-prone) defender.

    The bigger the game, the bigger he played.


    No. 4 KARL MALONE
    Why such a low rating for a two-time MVP and the second-leading scorer ever?

    Because Karl Malone was a choke artist. In the clutch, he'd miss free throws and take ill-advised shots. For example, instead of pounding his way into the lane from his customary station on the left box, Malone would spin baseline and uncork a low-percentage jumper.

    And don't pay any attention to his being named three times to the NBA's All-Defensive Team (1997-99). In truth, he was strong enough to move any low-post player several feet from his favorite spot. But his lateral movement was always poor, meaning any opponent who could turn and face would always wind up with a clean look. Also, Malone's pet ploy was to swipe at the ball while his opponent was preparing to shoot. Sometimes Malone was successful, but more often than not, his gamble would be futile, and he would be left exposed and off balance, placing his teammates in jeopardy.

    Malone was never anything more than a good player. John Stockton's crafty passes are responsible for turning Malone into a cinch Hall-of-Famer.


    No. 5 DAVE DeBUSSCHERE
    Yeah, he was a terrific spot-shooter with incredible range. He could rebound, pass and drive. But Dave DeBusschere gained entry into the Hall of Fame (1983) mostly on the basis of his Velcro-chested defense.

    He wasn't fond of switching on defense. He'd take care of his man and thought his teammates should take care of theirs. And his single-minded resolve to shut down his opponent (usually the other team's high scorer, often even at the small forward position) disrupted the bad guys' game plan more than if DeBusschere went out and scored 30 points.

    No player was tougher, and no guy worked harder. DeBusschere was the unsung hero of both of New York's championships.


    No. 6 DOLPH SCHAYES
    Dolph Schayes' rough-and-tumble game was made for the pros, and indeed he was a much better player with the Syracuse Nationals than he ever was at New York University.

    He put up points (18.2 over 16 seasons) with a high-arcing, two-hand set, with fearless drives into the lane and superb marksmanship at the foul line. Schayes led the NBA in free throw percentage in 1957-58, 1959-60 and 1961-62. He was also a savvy passer and determined rebounder (pacing the league in 1950-51 with 16.4 per game). Schayes may have been a belligerent (and slow-footed) defender, but most of his fouls left opponents with bruises.

    As mild-mannered as he was off the court, Schayes played in a fury once the lights were switched on, How tough was he? He once broke his right arm during the prime of his career and proceeded to shoot left handed, using the cast to club his way to the basket.

    Schayes was an All-NBA First Team selection six times over, and was the primary reason why the Nationals were NBA champs in 1955. He was also one of the few players who had All-Star seasons both before and after the installation of the 24-second shot clock.


    No. 7 DENNIS RODMAN

    Despite his zany lifestyle, Dennis Rodman was the ultimate role player. Defense, rebounding and running the court were his contributions to a slew of championships with Detroit and Chicago. For sheer athleticism, no other power forward could compare with Rodman.

    Unbeknownst to many casual basketball fans, Rodman was also an incredibly intelligent player. Whereas Karl Malone could never absorb even the most basic elements of the triangle offense, Rodman mastered every intricacy in his first training camp with Chicago.

    Not as physically strong as DeBusschere, and (besides put-backs and fast-break flashes) never being a scoring threat, Rodman was a more versatile defender than the Knicks' Hall of Famer in that he could throw a net over shooting guards, small forwards, power forward and centers.

    Like Bill Russell before him, Rodman proved that defense wins championships

    Just missing the cut:

    Bobby Jones
    Jerry Lucas
    Vern Mikkelsen
    James Worthy
    Gus Johnson.

    Missing in action:

    Kevin Garnett — hasn't been there, hasn't done that.

    Charles Barkley — only played defense when the spirit moved him. He routinely came into training camp grossly overweight, and then chastised his teammates for being out of shape.

    Elvin Hayes — awful defense, awful fundamentals, awful attitude.

    Bob McAdoo — soft, selfish and defenseless.

    Charley Rosen, former CBA coach, author of 12 books about hoops, the current one being A pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA, is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.


    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3747894
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  • #2
    Re: Rosen's top PFs

    Rodman ahead of Barkley?? Has this guy bothered to ever watch both of them play.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rosen's top PFs

      At least he didn't list Reggie Miller in his top 7......

      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


      • #4
        Re: Rosen's top PFs

        Elvin Hayes and Sir Charles getting left off the list is offensive to me as a human being.

        He also vastly overrates McHale, who at no point was even the best player on his own TEAM.......

        Not that McHale doesn't deserve to be on the list, but certainly not #2.

        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: Rosen's top PFs

          well there is definitely a theme to his picks....that keeps recurring with each position.....

          he has a very strong bias to the 'old school' versus what the game has evolved into.....

          duncan is definitely a throwback type of player....no wonder he puts him number one....

          might be interesting if u held a draft and all these guys were in it....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rosen's top PFs

            might be interesting if u held a draft and all these guys were in it...
            That'd be REAL interesting. It would be like any other draft though, after "the lottery" things would definitely get a lot harder.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rosen's top PFs

              i also cant help but think hes got a book coming out sometime soon and is trying to be controversial....

              cause some of these things simply cant be rationalized any other way than an obvious attempt to antagonize.....

              rodman???...i mean he talks about defensive weaknesses of a number of the others....well...rodman wasnt exactly an offensive stalwart...if it werent for offensive rebounds he might never have scored...

              i did like his way of justifying his kg omission....basically saying he had no reason....other than he probably just doesnt like the guy....

              if im building a team, id be hard pressed to take too many players ahead of kg at the power forward slot....he couldnt bash his offensive game, because hes stellar, does it all.....couldnt bash his defensive game, cause he does it all....hmmm...keeping a guy off an individual list because hes never had any decent teammates and plays in minnesota seems a bit harsh

              do people forget what minnesota was like before kg?? can u imagine what it would be like without him????

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rosen's top PFs

                Elvin Hayes, Charles Barkley are pretty big omissions. And let's not forget before he was all cracked out that Spencer Haywood averaged 30 and 20 one year, so what if it was the ABA

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rosen's top PFs

                  Well at least this guy is consistent. Some guys write a really good, then a really bad article. THis guy just lets the crap flow.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rosen's top PFs

                    Originally posted by Destined4Greatness
                    Well at least this guy is consistent. Some guys write a really good, then a really bad article. THis guy just lets the crap flow.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rosen's top PFs

                      Thats some BS, Jermaine is top 3 of all time.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X