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

Lakers ignored history's mistakes- Sports Guy

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

  • Lakers ignored history's mistakes- Sports Guy

    Sorry if this has already been posted....
    There is a Pacer mention buried in here tho I doubt some would like the comment....

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ns/take/040714

    Lakers ignored history's mistakes
    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2

    Posted 3:40 p.m., ET, July 14

    As the old saying goes, those who ignore history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Or something like that.

    The Lakers just gave away one of the 10 best players of all-time. He has two Hall of Fame years left in him, maybe three, maybe four. It all depends on where he ranks on the Vengeance Scale. We'll get to that in a second. They're getting a borderline All-Star (Lamar Odom) in return, as well as an up-and-coming role player (Caron Butler) and an overpaid rebounder (Brian Grant) with one of the worst contracts of the past 10 years. Oh, and they're getting a No. 1, which gives them the inside track on the 27th best rookie in next year's draft.


    "What? You traded me for who?"
    That's the whole trade. That's it. That's what Shaq was worth.

    We've been here before. In 1992, Philly made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE with a disgruntled Sir Charles, swapping him for 40 cents on the dollar (Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang and Tim Perry). In 1982, Houston traded Moses to Philly for Caldwell Jones and a piddling No. 1. In 1975, Milwaukee traded Kareem for Brian Winters, Junior Bridgeman, Laverne and Shirley. In the 1960's, even Wilt was freaking traded . . . twice. Every one of those guys ended up playing in the Finals within two years of said trade. You can look it up. During that time frame, only one franchise held strong with an unhappy superstar: the Rockets with Hakeem. They shopped him around, couldn't secure equal value, worked everything out with him and ended up winning consecutive titles in '94 and '95.

    (And yes, there's a reason I only used first names for the guys in the preceding paragraph. They earned the right to be mentioned on a first-name basis. And that's a good rule of thumb, for any team in any sport -- you probably don't want to lose someone who can carry off a single name. Call it the One-Name Litmus Test.)

    Unless you're getting two legitimate All-Stars in return, you can't trade a dominant player with something left in the tank. You just can't. If you're sending them from a bad situation to a good one, that's even dumber. And if you're sending them away with a chip on their shoulder, you just clinched the gold medal in the Dumb Olympics.

    A few weeks ago, I compared Shaq's recent ordeal to the time when Red Sox GM Dan Duquette decided that Roger Clemens was in the "twilight of his career." Clemens reacted like a spurned girlfriend, getting himself into impeccable shape and winning two straight Cy Youngs in Toronto. When I was considerably more bitter about this turn of events, I compared the experience to dumping your girlfriend, then watching her hire a personal trainer, shed 20 pounds, get breast implants and join the cast of "Baywatch." Now it makes more sense. Clearly, Clemens wasn't properly motivated during those last few years in Boston, despite being the highest-paid pitcher in the sport. For whatever reason, that dense hick needed an extra kick in the butt. Something Duquette unknowingly provided.

    You could say the same about Shaq. He did everything he ever wanted: Made tons of money, won three straight titles, cemented his status as one of the dominant players in history. What else was left? He hated playing with Kobe, hated the constant punishment underneath, hated how referees called the game differently for him (simply because they had no other choice). He suffered an endless array of nagging health problems, many of them directly related to his poor conditioning. Somewhere along the line, Shaq decided to take summers off and play himself into shape during the season. You can get away with that in your 20s. Not in your 30s.

    In fact, if you watch the 1993 All-Star Game on Classic some time, you'll see someone who looks like Shaq's younger, skinnier brother playing center for the East: a 7-foot-1, 308-pound monster with eight-percent body fat. Over the next decade, he probably packed on another 75 pounds -- most of it inevitable, some of it avoidable. Bigger Fatter Shaq still dominated games, but not consistently, as he grew tired of fighting Kobe for control of the team.

    His last hurrah occured in Game 4 of the Finals, when Shaq threw up a heroic 36-20 against the Pistons, a remarkable effort against a superior team. After the game, Phil Jackson sounded like a coach discussing a legendary player past his prime, bemoaning how the Lakers wasted such a singular performance by their star center. Reading between the lines, Jackson was insinuating that it couldn't happen twice in the same week.

    And he was right.

    *****

    So that's where we were with Shaq: Banged-up, exhausted, satisfied. A superstar ready for the next phase of his career.

    And if Kobe didn't turn the last 36 months into an extended season of "The Real World: Hollywood," Shaq would have settled into the old "David Robinson after Duncan came aboard" role -- happy to step aside, happy to contribute his 19-11 every night, happy to collect his eight-figure paycheck, always ready to step out of the phone booth with the Superman cape on for emergency duty. Kobe had other ideas. Just like Johnny Sack, he wanted to run his own family. He wanted to step out of the shadows of Shaq and Jackson. He didn't want to share the credit anymore. So he organized a palace coup.

    (Big mistake, by the way. When they produce a "Behind the Music" special about him years from now, they will re-hash everything you just read, and the narrator will say, "What Kobe didn't know was that it would all come crashing down." You think Magic would have won titles in '85, '87 and '88 if he pushed an aging Kareem out of town? Please. Unless your initials are "MJ," you need the big guy. You ALWAYS need the big guy. Kobe should have known this.)


    How could you not trade somebody like Dirk Nowitzki for Shaq?
    Hey, nobody wanted to see Shaq and Kobe part ways more than me -- partly because they were so dysfunctional to watch, partly because it makes the league roughly 432.5 percent more fun to follow with them on separate teams -- but I always thought the Lakers would secure something close to equal value. Instead, Dallas held strong; they wouldn't give up Nowitzki, the German Bob McAdoo. Sacramento wouldn't include Peja Stojakovic in any potential deal, and you can't blame them -- he's been a crucial part of those Kings teams that choke every spring. Indiana refused to dangle Jermaine O'Neal, who's a full notch below KG and Duncan (the Kilmer to their Cruise & Hanks).

    This was absolute madness. What were these teams thinking? This was Shaq! Still in his prime! A potentially ticked-off, ready-to-destroy-everybody Shaq!!!!

    I mean, isn't the point of having an NBA team to win the title? Why lock into winning 55 games a year and losing every May? Why even have a team then? If I were a Dallas fan right now, and the Mavs allowed Nash to leave after Cuban overpaid everyone else on the roster by 50 percent, then they refused to trade Nowitzki and Walker for Angry Shaq, I'm not sure what I would do. Angry Shaq, Jamison, Nash, Finley, Daniels, Howard and Najera . . . that team wins the title! It wins the freaking title! There's no question about it! Isn't that the whole point of having a team?!?!?!

    Faced with a dwindling market, desperate to appease young Kobe before he skipped over to the Clips -- which could still happen -- the Lakers panicked and placed Shaq in virtual escrow. Now that the Miami deal has gone down, everybody wins. Shaq gets a fresh start. Kobe gets his own team. Indiana, Sacramento and Dallas keep their franchise players, plus their owners won't have to worry about splurging for championship rings. The NBA gets a marketable franchise in the Heat, a guaranteed sellout across the country. Miami gets a championship contender out of nowhere. And we get the 15-percent possibility of a Shaq-Kobe Finals, which would dwarf just about everything that's happened since Magic and Michael in '91.

    Best of all, the world gets to find out about Dwyane Wade, one of the rare guards of the past 25 years, someone prudent enough to appreciate Shaq in ways that Kobe and Penny simply couldn't stomach. Wade doesn't care about being The Man; the dude just wants to win. He will tailor his game for Shaq, involve him every step of the way, stroke his ego . . . and quietly take over for him at crunch-time. As one of the 19 remaining NBA diehards, I'm legitimately ecstatic about this. What a development.

    *****

    And then there's Angry Shaq. He needed this to happen. Honestly, he hasn't given a crap about basketball for four years, since they won that second title and crushed the Sixers. After that happened, Satiated Shaq stuck around and kept playing, knowing that he could accomplish more on cruise control than just about every other player in the league. I don't think it was a malicious act on his part. It was his version of MJ scurrying off to hit baseballs for two years.

    Maybe we were insulted as basketball fans, but this was also the one quality that made him stand out over everyone else: This is a good guy. He takes care of his family, looks out for his friends, never stops having fun. He dabbles in movies, music, TV, even comedy roasts. He figured out how to handle the media early in his career -- mumble through your answers, use intimidation when necessary; and eventually, everyone will leave you alone. I think he's one of the smartest athletes in any sport. Seriously. Who leads a better life than him? What team athlete makes more money than him? Who balanced the characters of Public Superstar and Private Superstar more brilliantly than him? We don't know ANYTHING about him, yet we feel like we do. And he likes it that way.

    Which made it especially ironic that, for years and years, Shaq wore the "black hat" and Kobe wore the "white hat" on the Lakers. To the general public, Shaq was just a big mumbling monster, a physical freak with no discernible basketball skills, someone who couldn't even make a damn free throw. Casual fans (and Lakers fans, which is basically the same thing) gravitated towards Kobe, partly because he reminded them of a young MJ, partly because he seemed like such a decent guy. Nobody realized that Kobe was an impossible prima donna behind the scenes, a brooding loner consumed with basketball and nothing else, someone lacking the requisite social skills to get along with teammates on even a rudimentary level.


    Kobe wanted to be front and center -- he might just have done Shaq a favor.
    We reward these qualities because, from what we were seeing, Kobe played hard every night. Kobe seemed to care. Kobe answered questions. Kobe had a nice smile. Kobe came through in the clutch. Everything came too easy to Shaq, so we resented him the same way that parents resent one of those mutant 12-year-olds who seem too big for Little League. In retrospect, we were ignoring one of the dominant stretches by any athlete in the history of sports. Look up his stats some time. They're unbelievable. Respected basketball statistician Elliott Kalb even wrote a book last year arguing that Shaq is the greatest player ever, even better than Jordan and Wilt.

    But he still needed Kobe. As it turned out, Kobe was the best thing that ever happened to Shaq . . . twice. If Shaq has a weakness, it's that you can't feed him the ball exclusively at crunch-time, only because other teams will foul him and he might miss one or both free throws. Once Kobe matured, Shaq's one weakness became irrelevant. Kobe simply took over at crunch-time. Could Shaq have won three straight titles with any other teammate at the time? Probably not.

    That was Best Thing Ever No. 1.

    As for Best Thing No. 2, Kobe's petulance this summer could inadvertently salvage Shaq's career, the same way Magic's emergence invigorated Kareem in the early '80's, or Red Auerbach's decision to make Russell a player-coach breathed an extra three years of life into Russell's career. After a transcendent player rattles through the checklist of Transcendent Player Accomplishments -- MVPs, Titles, Alpha Dog Status, Richest Guy In the League, Most Endorsements, and so on -- there's only so many ways you can keep motivating yourself.

    This is where the Vengeance Scale comes in.

    *****

    Now . . .

    Deep down, I think Shaq is much more competitive than he lets on. I think he still believes that he's the best player in basketball, better than Duncan, better than KG, and definitely, definitely, DEFINITELY better than Kobe. I think he's positively apoplectic that the Lakers chose Kobe over him. I think he's insulted that they couldn't do better than "Odom, Grant and Butler." I think he's forming a mental list of players and teams he wants to destroy on a basketball court, a list that includes the Mavericks, Kings, Clippers, Lakers and Pacers; Nowitzki, O'Neal and Brad Miller; and whatever team that gainfully employs Kobe next season, even if it's the Colorado Penal League's Cell Block C All-Stars. I think he keeps hearing this "Shaq's hitting an age where great centers start to decline" stuff and it makes him want to put a fist through a wall.

    For the first time in years, I think Shaq gets himself in ridiculous shape this summer. There's no other way. He has too much to prove, too many scores to settle. In fact, here's how the Vengeance Scale looks right now, with a "1.0" being Mike Piazza's reaction after Clemens threw the bat at him in the 2000 World Series.


    Watch Shaq rise again thanks to a new challenge.
    5.0 -- Andre the Giant (after Killer Khan broke his leg)

    5.5 -- MJ (against Drexler in the '92 Finals)

    6.0 -- Roger Clemens (after the Red Sox gave up on him)

    6.5 -- Marvin Hagler (in the Hearns fight)

    7.0 -- Jimmy Snuka (after Roddy Piper rammed the coconuts in his head)

    7.5 -- MJ (after Karl Malone won the '97 MVP Award)

    8.0 -- Seagal in "Hard to Kill" (during the "I'm gonna take you to the bank, Trent . . . the blood bank" scene)

    8.5 -- Shaq (after finding out that the Lakers were trading him for Odom, Grant and Butler)

    9.0 -- Ali and Frazier (in Manila)

    9.5 -- Uma Thurman (in "Kill Bill" I and II)

    10.0 -- John Rambo in "First Blood 2" (during the "Murdock? I'm coming for you!" scene)

    That looks about right. Remember, Shaq's favorite movie is "The Warriors," the '70's classic where the top gang leader in New York City (Cyrus) holds a gang summit and tries to organize the first-ever gang revolution. As Cyrus points out, the total number of gang members doubles the number of police officers in the city, which logically means that they can overpower them and take over everything. Apparently, he didn't know about the National Guard, the FBI, the Army and the Marines. Anyway, Cyrus gets assassinated at the gang summit -- one of the most devastating screen deaths ever, right up there with Sonny Corleone and Hooch -- and everyone incorrectly blames the Warriors, an unassuming gang from Coney Island.

    Now the Warriors have to fight their way back to Coney with every gang in the city gunning for them. Nobody believes they can make it back alive. It's only a matter of time.

    Well, they make it back to Coney. Alive. (Except for the guy who gets thrown on the subway tracks, as well as the guy who ended up playing Ganz on "48 Hours" and owning the hotel on "North Shore.") They even find the guys who killed Cyrus. At the end of the movie, the leader of the Riffs tells Swan (the Warriors warlord), "You guys are good . . . you guys are real good."

    Swan stares back at him. Hard.

    "The best."

    And he's right. Even if Swan did end up starring in "Xanadu" two years later.

    Here's the point: This is Shaq's favorite movie. He's probably seen it 600 times. And if you don't think he slipped that DVD in this summer and compared his situation to the Warriors every step of the way, you're crazy. For Shaquille O'Neal, getting back to the top of the mountain is like getting back to Coney. Nobody believes in him. He has to fight his way back. And he's pinning his hopes on that one moment when somebody hands him that NBA trophy next summer, and David Stern tells him, "You guys were good . . . real good," and he can come back with two words: "The best."

    And yes, I can dig it.

    Bill Simmons is a columnist for ESPN The Magazine and Page 2. You can reach his Sports Guy's World site every day on ESPN.com.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: Lakers ignored history's mistakes- Sports Guy

    JO is NOT a full notch below KG and TD. He's about half a notch. And that gap is going to close a little more this year. When JO becomes a 24-12 guy.
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Lakers ignored history's mistakes- Sports Guy

      And we get the 15-percent possibility of a Shaq-Kobe Finals, which would dwarf just about everything that's happened since Magic and Michael in '91.
      If this happens, you know the NBA is fixed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Lakers ignored history's mistakes- Sports Guy

        Originally posted by bulletproof

        If this happens, you know the NBA is fixed.
        ...or just plain broken!
        :P

        -Bball

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

        ------

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

        -John Wooden

        Comment

        Working...
        X