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

Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

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

  • Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/060602


    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2


    In case you're scoring at home, we're still running down a dream. Here are 12 burning questions as we head into one of the more fascinating weekends in recent NBA history ...



    Question No. 1: What has been the unsung story of the playoffs?



    Dirk Nowitzki. Although that could change after his torching of Phoenix on Thursday night -- 50 points, 12 rebounds and one of the all-time "we're not gonna lose this game" stretch runs (scoring 24 of 34 Dallas points in one stretch to put the game away). I know Nash won the MVP, LeBron and Wade have more upside, Duncan is the best all-around player, Kobe is the most explosive ... but if you could count on one franchise guy in a playoff series this spring, would you pick anyone other than the world's most famous Hasselhoff fan?


    Dirk is averaging 28.7 points, 12.1 rebounds and 3.1 assists during the playoffs

    It's been refreshing to watch a great player refine his game and make the necessary fundamental/philosophical changes to become a dominant force -- like realizing that it's not OK to ***** out teammates on national TV, or finding a consistent way to punish smaller defenders on isolation plays. Even before Thursday, I thought Dirk took a Bob Beamon-level leap from "Franchise Guy" to "Potential Pantheon Guy" over the past six weeks, capped off by his incredible seven-game stretch from Game 3 of the Spurs series through Game 3 of the Suns series where he averaged 29 points and 15 rebounds a game and made the single biggest play of the playoffs: the three-point play in Game 7 against the Spurs.

    Considering the circumstances, didn't that play rank with Magic's sky hook against the '87 Celtics, Bird's steal-and-pass against the '87 Pistons, MJ's basket-steal-basket sequence to end the '98 Finals, Jerry West's half-court bomb to save Game 2 of the '70 Finals and every other I-need-to-come-up-big-RIGHT-NOW clutch play in NBA history? Think about the context: Dallas was 20 seconds away from blowing a 3-games-to-1 lead, trailing by three with 20 seconds left, reeling from a blown 20-point lead and a gut-wrenching, go-ahead bomb from Ginobili, and they were playing on the road to boot. So they call the play for Nowitzki, who would have settled for a fallaway jumper as recently as last spring. Not this year. He takes Bruce Bowen into the paint with that herky-jerky, back-you-down move he developed over the summer, sneaks by him, gets to the rim, absorbs the contact from Ginobili, finishes the shot, draws the foul AND buries the free throw.

    Ask yourself this one: How many superstars have singlehandedly altered the course of the playoffs with one play?

    One more: Is there anyone who can guard Nowitzki right now? Opponents don't bother sticking the taller Duncan/Garnett types on him (Dirk beats them off the dribble whenever he wants). The Bowen/Bell types don't have a chance because of his creative post-guys-up-at-the-foul-line game, which has become unstoppable now that he mastered his fallaway turnaround. So who's left? Lanky forwards like Shawn Marion or Tim Thomas would seem to have the best chance -- they haven't come close to stopping Nowitzki but at least made him work for his points -- but even when Dirk's shot isn't falling, he's adopted the Larry Bird trick of crashing the offensive boards and making up those points on putbacks and foul shots. And we haven't even mentioned his 3-point shooting yet. I just don't think there's any way to fully shut him down.


    Which brings me to my point: Dirk is playing at a higher level than any forward since Bird. Everyone else from the past 25 years was flawed in some way. Garnett and Malone had trouble taking over games. Barkley was better suited as a second banana; teams could handle him in the final minutes because of his shaky shot selection. Duncan is the best all-around power forward ever, but his poor free-throw shooting makes him a dicey option down the stretch. (Just look at what happened at the end of regulation in Game 7: the Spurs ran the final play for Ginobili.) But Nowitzki doesn't have any holes -- he scores against anyone, makes his free throws, grabs big rebounds in traffic, protects the rim, even doles out the right amount of sneers and chest bumps. He's been a killer all spring, a true assassin, and I certainly never imagined writing that about Dirk Nowitzki.



    One more note on this: we get carried away with basketball statistics nowadays, as evidenced by the new book that rated Allen Iverson as the 90th best player in the league during his MVP season. Why make it so complicated? Just add up the point, rebound and assist averages for franchise guys during the playoffs: If the number tops 42, you're probably talking about a pantheon guy. You could even call it the 42 Club, just as exclusive as the Five-Timer Club on SNL, only without the NBA equivalent of Elliott Gould.



    If you put a smaller guy on Nowitzki, he'll shoot over you.
    Since it's my idea, I only allowed guys who played 13 or more playoff games in one postseason to be eligible, since that's a legitimate sampling (more than a month of basketball at the highest level). Here's what the 42 Club looks like since the ABA/NBA merger in 1976:



    Michael Jordan (six times) -- 49.4 ('89); 50.7 ('90); 45.9 ('91); 46.5 ('92); 47.8 ('93); 43.8 ('97)
    Shaquille O'Neal (four times) -- 43.6 ('98); 49.2 ('00); 49.0 ('01); 43.9 ('02)
    Larry Bird (four times) -- 42.0 ('81); 44.4 ('84); 43.4 ('86); 44.2 ('87)
    Moses Malone (twice) -- 43.0 ('81), 43.3 ('83)
    Magic Johnson (twice) -- 43.8 ('86), 42.5 ('91)
    Karl Malone (twice) -- 43.0 ('92), 42.9 ('94)
    Hakeem Olajuwon (twice) -- 44.2 ('94), 47.8 ('95)
    Tim Duncan (twice) -- 42.7 ('01), 45.4 ('03)
    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- 47.1 ('80)
    Charles Barkley -- 44.5 ('93)
    Kobe Bryant -- 42.8 ('01)
    Allen Iverson -- 43.7 ('01)
    Kevin Garnett -- 44.0 ('04)
    LeBron James -- 44.7 ('06)
    Dirk Nowitzki -- 45.1 ('06, ongoing)


    Here's why I love the 42 Club: There isn't a single fraud on that list, with the possible exception of the Mailman (that's a whole other column). Every memorable spring from the past three decades is represented except for three: Bill Walton in '77 (didn't score enough); Bernard King in '84 (played only 12 games); and Magic in '87 and '88 (he just missed). Just like in real life, the best seasons of Patrick Ewing, David Robinson and Clyde Drexler fell short. Those career year/MVP seasons for KG, Barkley and Iverson all qualified, as did Kobe's ridiculous 2001 season (when he peaked as an all-around player). MJ leads the list with six appearances, which seems logical because he was the most dominant player of that era. And LeBron cracked the list at age 21, which was fitting because we'll be electing him lifetime president of the 42 Club within the next 12 years.



    Did I ever believe that Nowitzki would crack the 42 Club? No way. Just two summers ago, I skewered the Mavs for refusing to part with him in a Shaq trade; by my logic, they were passing up two or three guaranteed championships to keep someone who wasn't quite a franchise player. Well, I was wrong. (Although not completely wrong -- would you rather have Nash and Shaq or Nowitzki and Dampier?) Regardless, he's the most unstoppable player in basketball, a true franchise guy, and I think he's headed for his first championship in about two weeks.



    (The only catch: Does it scare anyone else that the NBA's alpha dog could end up being a German guy? Remember, this is the same country that started two World Wars last century and deliberately crippled Pele in "Victory." We need to be careful here -- we don't want to give them their confidence back. I'm willing to accept Dirk's reign, but only if he accepts the championship trophy by re-enacting Rocky Balboa's speech from Christmas Day, 1986 -- "If I can change, and you can change, EVERY VUN can change!" -- as a sobbing Mark Cuban hugs David Stern in the background.)


    Question No. 2: Speaking of Hasselhoff, did his interview with Craig Sager during Game 2 double as the Unintentional Comedy moment of the year?


    Nahhhhh ... not in the same year that featured Rey Mysterio Jr. giving a heartfelt speech about Eddy Guerrero at the WWE Hall of Fame ceremonies while wearing his wrestling mask. But when you combine it with the shot of Hasselhoff crying in the stands after Taylor Hicks won "American Idol" ... yes, he's the Unintentional Comedy MVP of 2006. Although we still have seven months to go. My favorite part of the Hasselhoff renaissance -- the thought of his agent calling him to say, "You're not gonna believe this! You're Nowitzki's favorite singer! He whispers one of your songs to himself when he's shooting free throws! We gotta jump on this! I have you booked on a plane to Dallas; you're leaving in three hours! This could get us into the 'Surreal Life' house!")



    (By the way, we had to recalibrate the Unintentional Comedy Scale thanks to this William Shatner clip on youtube.com -- everything once rated 100 out of 100 has been dropped to 99 so the ShatMan can stand alone (yes, even Carl Lewis' national anthem performance). This will never be topped. I'm calling it right now. We have hit the comedy ceiling, my friends.)



    Question No. 3: What was the most perplexing story line of the 2006 playoffs that didn't include the words "Mike Dunleavy" or "Daniel Ewing?"



    I'm going with these two ...



    1. DeSagana Diop, Series-Changing Presence. Anyone who followed basketball wasn't surprised that he's having an impact in the playoffs -- I even voted for him over Diaw for "Most Improved," if only because Diaw was a D-plus in Atlanta and became a B-plus in Phoenix, whereas Diop was a B-minus in Dallas after being an F-minus-minus-minus in Cleveland. But imagine being a Cavs fan? Your team picked this guy directly in front of Joe Johnson, Vlad Radmanovic and Richard Jefferson. You had to watch him flounder for four solid years. Then he went to Dallas, lost 80 pounds and became the homeless man's Bill Russell. How does this happen?



    (By the way, I'm trying to start that "homeless man's" trend so we have more options for the "poor man's" analogy. For instance, Mark Madsen is the poor man's Jack Haley, and Sean Marks is the poor man's Mark Madsen ... which should then make Marks the homeless man's Jack Haley. Think about it. You don't have to decide right now if you're with me.)






    Tim Heitman/Getty Images
    Thomas has gone from career disappointment to clutch playoff scorer (15.5 per game).
    2. Tim Thomas, Indispensable Playoff Performer. Here's someone who broke hearts for nearly nine seasons and was probably the sixth man on this century's "It's Too Bad That Guy Didn't Give A **** Team." Now he's guarding Elton Brand and Nowitzki, protecting the rim, draining clutch 3s, torturing smaller guys in the low post, bringing out bigger guys to the 3-point line and shooting over them ... in two months, he justified every best-case scenario projection that anyone made since his Villanova days. And sure, it's easy to say that "this just proves anyone could be happy playing with Steve Nash on a team that never practices" -- or to simply hand him the 2006 Jerome James Award and be done with it.



    But don't you see? This is why the draft drives people crazy. This is why we have to hear about upsides and ceilings every June. This is why teams get sucked in with workouts, why they tend to ignore game tapes and tell themselves things like, "So what if Rajon Rondo couldn't make a jumper in college to save his life, he was nailing them in that workout!" or "Who cares if Rudy Gay didn't give a crap at UConn, I've never seen anyone run wind sprints like that!" You never know when the light bulb might start flickering with these guys. In Tim Thomas' case, it took eight years and 10 months. And I'm still not totally sold on him.



    Question No. 4: What triggered Hubie Brown's incredible decision to announce the entire playoffs in the second-person?



    You have to look at it this way. You are Hubie Brown. You have done everything you could EVER imagine in this league. You KNOW that you are done with coaching, and you KNOW that your broadcasting career is coming to an end soon. You know that your legacy will live on through ESPN Classic, through basketballreference.com and through your proteges spread throughout the college and pro ranks, of which you have MANY. You know that you need to take a sabbatical soon to work on your upcoming book, "The 750 Greatest Timeouts From the Past 35 Years." Now ... you know there is only one accomplishment left for you -- you need to sustain the second-person on live television for TWO months. You know this is a long time. You also know that you cannot waver from this goal, because it could be your legacy. ...



    Question No. 5: Have there been any other broadcasting breakthroughs?



    I'm not sure if this is a breakthrough, but Jeremy from Portland raises a pretty good point: "Doug Collins dominates the 'You can't give a struggling shooter a layup to get him going' market as thoroughly as Kenny Loggins dominated 1980s movie songs. One time Steve Kerr got there first, and it was like Loggins losing out to Lindsey Buckingham for the 'Vacation' theme in 1983. Now, imagine Doug Collins belting out 'Meet Me Halfway' at a karaoke bar."



    Question No. 6: Flip Saunders' weird nervous tick, the one where he juts his chin out and tilts his head back during tense moments ... umm ... has he always been doing that?



    I would love to tell you that this started midway through the Cavs series, but yes, he's always done that. It's just a little more pronounced now that he's coaching a 64-win team into the ground.



    That reminds me, after watching Flip for the past six weeks, I'm willing to reconsider the whole "KG has been wildly underrated all along and never got any help except for the one year with Cassell and Spree" thing. No wonder KG looked like he was ready to commit a homicide all season.



    Question No. 7: Is it true that Ben Wallace's agent was found in his garage with the car running after Game 5 of the Miami series?



    Not true. Although you couldn't have blamed him.



    Question No. 8: Why is Paul Westhead secretly rejoicing about the success of the Suns?



    Because this was his idea! Remember when the Nuggets hired him from Loyola Marymount and he installed that crazy run-and-gun offense where Denver genuinely didn't care if the other team scored, as long as the Nuggets were getting it back? There were three major outcomes. First, that Nuggets team threw a major monkey wrench in everyone's fantasy league -- I distinctly remember washed-up guys like Orlando Woolridge and Walter Davis going in the top five rounds and everyone wanting to throw up, as well as Michael Adams becoming a top-10 guy. Yikes. Second, they gave up a whopping 130 points per game, a record that will never be broken unless they merge the NBA and WNBA some day. And third, the idea failed so miserably and was considered such a joke that Westhead -- a fairly accomplished coach to that point (he even had an NBA championship ring with the Lakers) -- was basically blackballed from coaching in the league.



    Here was the real problem: Westhead just had the wrong guys. You can't run that system with Adams and a bunch of castoffs, but you can run a *******ized version with Nash and some legitimate scorers, right? Kobe said it best during his "Inside the NBA" cameo when he was dressed like Mr. Rogers: You don't beat the Suns by outscoring them, because that's impossible; the higher the score, the happier they are. Plus, when they're making shots, that picks up their intensity across the board -- guys start flying around the court, challenging shots, protecting the rim and everything else. Kobe thought you beat the Suns by slowing them down and getting stops on the defensive end, almost like keeping a great football offense off the field by controlling the clock with your running game.



    And you know what? The Mamba was right. If the game is frantic and unpredictable, Phoenix thrives. If it's slow and predictable, they struggle. You would have figured that a team like the Mavs -- blessed with an excellent coach, a 45-man coaching staff and about 600 scouts -- would have known not to run with the Suns, but guess what happened? They succumbed in Game 1 (and lost). After that game, Avery Johnson vowed that Dallas wouldn't run with them again and kept his word until Game 5, when they nearly blew the game by speeding things up until Nowitzki saved them down the stretch. (We won't see the Mavs running with the Suns in Game 6. Unless they're crazy.) But Westhead has to feel vindicated over this whole thing. His formula worked. About 15 years too late.



    Question No. 9: What day do "The Closer" and "Saved" start?



    June 12. Only on TNT. We know drama.






    Jesse D. Garrabrant/NBAE/Getty Images
    Dear Shaq: You are no longer The Man.
    Question No. 10: When Wallace violently stuffed Shaq's dunk during Game 5, did Shaq's reign as a dominant center officially come to an end?



    I say yes. Five years ago, Shaq would have either broken Wallace's arm or stuffed him through the hoop with the ball. Now he's looking like Sam Elliott's character during any of the fight scenes at the Double Deuce -- a little overwhelmed, surprisingly feeble, getting by on reputation alone. He's still good for a 20-10 every night, but his body has pretty much straightened out -- he can't bend his knees anymore, which kills his explosiveness when he's standing still (especially on putbacks around the basket), and he's starting to get that clumsy, mummy-like feel to his game that always destroys centers in their waning years.



    Again, these are just flashes, but they're happening more and more, and he's inevitably headed for a serious decline over the next 2-3 years. Hopefully he won't hang around for too many seasons like so many other great centers did (Kareem, Parish, Gilmore, Hakeem and Moses, to name five). I always appreciated that about David Robinson -- he could see the writing on the wall, so he retired and never looked back. Then again, he was the only All-Star center who cracked 1300 on his SATs.



    (By the way, if you were Dwyane Wade, and you were trapped on a team with aging players and no cap space, and you knew Shaq's career was winding down ... would you be that eager to sign an extension in Miami this summer? Or would you want to keep your options open? He would be CRAZY to sign. If that were me, not only would I be planning my escape, my No. 1 goal would be to find a city where the fans didn't dress in all-white for big playoff games like they were attending a theme wedding in the Hamptons. I'm picky that way.)



    Question No. 11: In the history of organized sports, has a coach or manager ever done a better job of reacting to a bad call than Mike D'Antoni?



    No way. Nobody works themselves into a foot-stomping, squinting, aghast frenzy like the Suns coach, who hasn't been this convincing since he was promising Maverick, "And if you can't find anyone, gimme a call, I'll fly with you" right before the final battle scene in "Top Gun." But every time he flipped out, I kept getting déjà vu ... where else had I seen that stamping routine before?


    It's not a playoff game if D'Antoni isn't yelling at the refs for 48 minutes.
    Fortunately, Kansas City reader Daniel Warren was able to fill in the blanks: "Seeing D'Antoni react to the botched shot-clock violation in Game 3 made me stop short. Where had I seen a mustachioed man stomp around and frown so abruptly in response to an unfavorable decision? It took a while, but my buddy Andrew and I finally realized that a pissed-off Mike D'Antoni turns into Channel 4's Ron Burgundy when Veronica Corningstone is named co-anchor."



    Perfect! Now D'Antoni's tantrums are twice as enjoyable because you can pepper them with jokes like, "Hey Bavetta, why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island!"



    (One more classic D'Antoni maneuver: Whenever an opponent is shooting a free throw on the side near Phoenix's bench, he always pretends to be complaining about the call, only he plants himself in the corner of the shooter's eye and deliberately wanders back and forth right as the guy is shooting. Utterly devious. That's a team of floppers, cheaters and guys who push off every time they drive to the basket; they're about four more flops away from being eligible for the 2006 World Cup. How does Ginobili not play for these guys? It must kill him. All right, I'm babbling ...)



    Question No. 12: Are the Pistons done?



    Let's rephrase the question: How are the Pistons still alive? The Cavs should have finished them off in Game 6 and lost because Detroit banked home two lucky shots and tipped in a couple of rebounds. Truth be told, the Pistons haven't played a quality, all-around game since Game 1 of the Cleveland series, when they annihilated the Cavs and apparently decided that "we can turn it on and off whenever we want."



    You can do that if you have a great team. But as we're learning, this isn't a great team anymore. First, Joe Dumars did nothing to help his bench other than sign Antonio McDyess two years ago -- none of the draft picks or trades helped, and the Darko debacle, from beginning to end, ranks among the most mishandled personnel sagas in the history of the league. Second, you can't grind out those 72-70 wins anymore, not when the various rule changes reward teams that can shoot 3s and attack the basket, and it's just too much of a chore for these guys to score against good defensive teams (especially when they're playing four-on-five with Ben Wallace). Third, they have the wrong coach -- it's obvious now -- and it seems like he's getting more overwhelmed with each game.






    Allen Einstein/Getty Images
    Rasheed and the Pistons have suddenly gone soft on us.
    But here's the biggest thing: These guys played with a collective chip on their shoulder for two solid years. Nobody thought they could beat the Lakers -- they crushed them. People wondered if they could defend their title -- they made it to the last game of the Finals. Nobody respected them as much without Larry Brown -- they rolled off a 38-6 streak to start the season and crushed the Spurs twice. And everything was going great, and they looked unstoppable ... and then the All-Star picks came out. Billups, Hamilton and the Wallaces all made it. They spent a weekend in Houston getting their butts kissed. And then the wheels came off. It was like the scene in "Rocky III" when Mickey tells Rocky that he needs to retire, that the worst thing happened to him that could ever happen to a boxer -- namely, he'd been civilized. And I think the All-Star Game civilized the Pistons.



    In their heyday, they resembled one of those boxers who overpowered opponents simply by outpunching them, by knocking the crap out of them, by coming forward again and again and breaking their will. Since the All-Star Game, they morphed into something different, more of a finesse team, definitely more inconsistent, the kind of team they would have gobbled up two years ago. The wakeup call happened in Game 4 of the Cavs series, after Rasheed guaranteed a victory, when they squandered a winnable game against an inferior team. Great teams show up for those. Even during Game 5 of the Miami series, a deceiving double-digit win for the Pistons at home, the Heat were in striking distance despite shooting an abysmal 6-for-20 from the charity stripe. Six-for-20! And they still had a chance to win?



    Sure, the Pistons still can salvage the Miami series. But Young Flanagan taught us that everything ends badly, otherwise it wouldn't end, and this Pistons team reminds me of some other fading powerhouses that were symbolically blown out in a series to end their reign (the '88 Celtics, '91 Pistons and '04 Lakers, to name three). I don't think they have a chance tonight.



    More importantly, I hope they get knocked out -- not because I'm tired of watching them, but because I'm bored by the whole we're-trying-harder-tonight-because-our-backs-are-against-the-wall mind-set. Is that an acceptable excuse anymore? Just look at the Western Conference, where the undermanned Suns have been killing themselves for 19 straight playoff games (and counting). No excuses, no empty promises, no tough talk ... just a gritty team that loves playing together, keeps showing up and seems determined to keep winning or go down fighting. And you thought Detroit was the tough one.



    Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine. His new book "Now I Can Die In Peace is available on Amazon.com and in bookstores everywhere.


    ----
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

    Great article.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

      I'm waiting for McKeyFan to use this as another reason to bump his "Pistons Peaked" thread.

      Also, how are the Suns (who went down 3-1 and haven't had a series in which they didn't face an elimination game) an example of a team that doesn't "wait till their backs are to the wall"?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

        Why does he keep saying "Pantheon guy"? Shouldn't it be Parthenon guy?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

          Originally posted by Hicks
          Why does he keep saying "Pantheon guy"? Shouldn't it be Parthenon guy?


          pan·the·on (păn'thē-ŏn', -ən)
          n.
          Pantheon A circular temple in Rome, completed in 27 B.C. and dedicated to all the gods.
          A temple dedicated to all gods.
          All the gods of a people considered as a group: Jupiter is head of the Roman pantheon.
          A public building commemorating and dedicated to the heroes and heroines of a nation.
          A group of persons most highly regarded for contributions to a field or endeavor: the pantheon of modern physics.
          [Middle English Panteon, Pantheon, from Latin Panthēum, Panthēon, from Greek Pantheion, shrine of all the gods, from neuter sing. of pantheios, of all the gods : pan-, pan- + theos, god.]

          Par·the·non (pär'thə-nŏn', -nən)
          n.
          The chief temple of the goddess Athena built on the acropolis at Athens between 447 and 432 B.C. and considered a supreme example of Doric architecture.
          [Latin Parthenōn, from Greek, from parthenos, virgin.]
          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

            Originally posted by Fool
            I'm waiting for McKeyFan to use this as another reason to bump his "Pistons Peaked" thread.
            I'm waiting for the 4-2 conclusion.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

              If you're a fan of the NBA you have to enjoying Question 4. You just have to.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

                Originally posted by Fool
                I'm waiting for McKeyFan to use this as another reason to bump his "Pistons Peaked" thread.
                Somehow I think he'd bump it if rip picked up a speeding ticket....

                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


                • #9
                  Re: Bill Simmons on Dirk (best F since Bird?), Shaq's decline, the Pistons' fade

                  Question No. 9: What day do "The Closer" and "Saved" start?



                  June 12. Only on TNT. We know drama.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X