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

Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

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

  • #16
    Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

    Reggie Miller is 14th All-Time in scoring, 14th! You know how many players are in the hall of fame?

    He was just recently the ALL-Time leader in 3pt made until Ray Allen. Top 10 All-time FT%. 6th All-time minutes played in the NBA. Not really fair if you ask me.

    You have other players riding coattails into the HOF like Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a good player, but didn't do much without Jordan. You may even remember the Bulls trying to make Kukoc the main guy when Jordan 1st retired.

    Not saying Pippen doesn't deserve, but it's not fair to reward guys for playing with other hall of fame, and not reward a guy in a small market that wore an S on his chest for an entire franchise.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post

      You have other players riding coattails into the HOF like Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a good player, but didn't do much without Jordan. You may even remember the Bulls trying to make Kukoc the main guy when Jordan 1st retired.

      Not saying Pippen doesn't deserve, but it's not fair to reward guys for playing with other hall of fame, and not reward a guy in a small market that wore an S on his chest for an entire franchise.
      Pippen is heads and shoulders above Reggie Miller in every facet aside from 3-point shooting. He rode no one's coat tails. Just because he was on a team with Michael Jordan does not mean he's any less of a player.

      Oh, and in case you didn't know, Jordan never went anywhere without Pippen, either. He went 0-3 in the playoffs (swept two of those series) before the Bulls traded for Pippen on draft day.

      Reggie Miller is 14th All-Time in scoring, 14th! You know how many players are in the hall of fame?
      The all-time scoring list is proof of Reggie's great longevity, but let's not pretend he was one of the top 14 scorers of all time, or top 50, for that matter. He's a career 18ppg scorer, good for 97th in NBA history. In the playoffs, his average rises to about 21ppg, but that only gets him to 43rd. Richard Hamilton if he finds his way back to a contender, could retire as one of the top 15-20 cumulative playoff scorers of all time. Anybody think he's a hall of famer?

      He was just recently the ALL-Time leader in 3pt made until Ray Allen.
      ...3rd on the list is Jason Kidd. It's an accomplishment to be proud of, just not one NBA analysts hold in high regard. The stat itself has only been around what, 30 years? That's less than half the age of the NBA itself.

      I think Ray Allen will probably go into the HoF after a few tries, just like Reggie probably will.

      Top 10 All-time FT%.
      ...behind Scott Skiles and Peja Stojakovic. Mark Price is #2 on the list and I don't think he's gotten a single vote. Again, not a stat that's going to get you into the hall.

      6th All-time minutes played in the NBA. Not really fair if you ask me.
      This is actually the most impressive stat among the ones listed. Not many non-hall of famers in the top 20. Artis Gilmore is the only other guy with similar minutes not in the hall, and he's borderline. Payton and Kidd should get in. Cliff Robinson looks like he'll be the cut-off line at #18 if and when Reggie gets in.
      Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 08:24 AM.

      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


      • #18
        Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

        This is upsetting enough to make me come out of the shadows. Seriously, it's nuts how quickly people forget what a great player Reggie was.

        Exhibit A. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_career.html

        Reggie is 10th all-time in win shares. You may say "what's a win share", or "10th doesn't sound all that great". Well, everyone else in the top 10 are first ballot hall-of-famers. Actually, almost all of the top 30 are first ballot hall-of-famers. Seriously, look at that list. You can't just luck into the top ten all time in win shares.

        His playoff credentials:

        #7 all time offensive win shares
        Top 20 all-time overall win shares
        Top 20 all-time scoring
        #1 all time three pointers made
        Top 10 all time free throw shooter
        #12 all time in true shooting percentage
        #11 all time in offensive rating
        #15 all time in free throws made

        As for the regular season, maybe more impressive:

        as I said earlier, #10 all time in win shares
        #2 all time in offensive rating
        #6 all time in true shooting percentage
        #14 all time in scoring
        #6 all time in Minutes played
        #2 all time in 3 pointers made
        #12 all time in free throws made
        #9 all time in free throw percentage
        #7 all time in offensive win shares

        Sorry for the long post, but if those aren't the numbers of a first ballot hall-of-famer, I don't know what are. The only thing that's missing of course is a championship ring, but, is that really a requirement to get in on the first ballot?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

          Nice writeup in the NY Times, including quotes from Donnie.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/sp...html?src=twrhp

          A Big Absence: No Reggie Miller on the Hall’s List

          By JONATHAN ABRAMS

          When the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame announces its finalists for the class of 2011 on Friday, one name will be conspicuous in its absence: that of Reggie Miller, the former Indiana Pacers sharpshooter, who is in his first year of eligibility.

          Miller, 45, who retired in 2005 and will be in Los Angeles this weekend as an analyst for TNT during All-Star weekend, was not on the Hall of Fame’s list, according to a person who was made aware that Miller had not been chosen and who asked for anonymity because the results had not been made public.

          Basketball’s Hall of Fame, unlike baseball’s, seldom turns to milestones, like 3,000 hits or 300 victories, as guides to induction. It attempts to evaluate the most important contributors to the sport throughout the world, not just in the N.B.A., so it is somewhat difficult to weigh the merits of Uljana Semjonova, a women’s player from Latvia, against Dan Issel, a former All-Star and A.B.A. co-rookie of the year, although both were selected in 1993.

          Four groups from the Hall take part in the voting: the North American, the Veterans, the International and the Women’s Committees.

          To become a finalist from the North American group, nominees must receive approval on at least seven of nine ballots. The other committees require approval from at least five of the seven. To be selected for the Hall, a finalist needs at least 18 of 24 votes from what is known as the Honors Committee, a group consisting of Hall of Famers, basketball executives, members of the news media and other contributors to the game. Committee members are not aware of one another’s identities.

          At last year’s All-Star Game, Jerry Colangelo, the Hall of Fame’s chairman, defended the anonymity of the committee members. The Professional Basketball Writers Association has offered to assist in the voting process, routine in most other sports Halls of Fame, or even serve as a witness.

          “In order to have a process that’s clean, you can’t have people know who’s on the committee, because you don’t want people soliciting votes,” Colangelo said last year. “I think that’s really unhealthy. I’ll know who’s on the committee, and it will be my judgment how we get the kind of transparency I believe we need.”

          There is no limit to the number of years a candidate can be considered for induction by the various screening committees unless he does not receive a vote for three straight years. The North American Committee is allowed to put a maximum of 10 candidates before the Honors Committee each year. Each of the others is limited to two.

          The 2011 class will be announced during the Final Four of the men’s N.C.A.A. tournament in April. The induction ceremony will be in August in Springfield, Mass.

          Miller, a 6-foot-7 swingman, played his entire 18-year career with the Pacers. Members of the committee may have taken into account that he never was named a most valuable player and was not on a championship-winning team. But Miller made five All-Star teams, won an Olympic gold medal in 1996 and held the N.B.A.’s record with 2,560 3-pointers until Ray Allen of the Boston Celtics passed him last week. He averaged 18.2 points per game and led the league in free-throw percentage five times.

          Miller was also known for terrorizing the Knicks for much of the 1990s, most notably in Game 1 of the 1995 Eastern Conference semifinals, when he scored the final 8 points of the game to turn a 6-point Knicks lead with 18.7 seconds left into a Pacers victory.

          Told that Miller was not among the finalists, Donnie Walsh, the Knicks’ president but a Pacers executive when Miller played, said he was surprised.

          “I just know this, if he’s not a Hall of Fame guy, I don’t know who is,” said Walsh, who drafted Miller 11th over all out of U.C.L.A. in 1987, taking a pass on the in-state favorite Steve Alford.

          “He took a very troubled franchise and ended up in the Eastern Conference finals six times,” Walsh said of Miller. “That’s pretty impressive for a guy who weighs about 185 pounds, and in the years that he did it, he was a marked guy and he relished it. I feel very thankful to Reggie to what he did for the Pacers and I just feel he deserves that honor, whether it comes now, later or whatever.”

          Last year, 19 finalists for the Hall were announced at the All-Star Game in Arlington, Tex. Ultimately inducted were the players Cynthia Cooper-Dyke, Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen; the high school coach Bob Hurley Sr.; Jerry Buss, owner of the Lakers; the 1960 and 1992 United States Olympic teams; and, posthumously, the N.B.A. players Dennis Johnson and Gus Johnson, and the Brazilian center Maciel Pereira, known as Ubiratan.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

            Okay, this is upsetting enough to bring me out of the shadows. There are so many reasons Reggie is a first ballot hall-of-famer.

            Exhibit A. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_career.html

            Reggie is tenth all time in win shares. You might not know what a win share is, but look at that list. Every other player in the top ten, hell, most in the top 30 are first ballot guys. You don't end up 10th all time by luck.

            Not to mention:

            #2 all time in offensive rating
            #6 all time in true shooting percentage
            #7 all time in offensive win shares
            #6 all time in minutes played
            #2 all time in 3 pointers made (#1 in the playoffs by a country mile)
            #14 all time in points scored
            #9 all time in free throw percentage
            #12 in free throws made

            Oh yeah, and he had some pretty clutch performances in the playoffs.

            I'm sorry but if those aren't the credentials of a first ballot hall-of-famer, I don't know what are. Of course, the only thing he is missing is a championship ring. But, is that really a prerequisite to be a first ballot guy?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                You have other players riding coattails into the HOF like Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a good player, but didn't do much without Jordan. You may even remember the Bulls trying to make Kukoc the main guy when Jordan 1st retired.
                What reality do you live in?


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                  I have always felt that you are either a hall of famer or your not. I also don't think that you have to have a long career to make the Hall. You can have a short career and still be Hall of Famer if your great enough. It's not just about the numbers. Did you have enough moments to leave a lasting impression on you legacy. I hear a name and without looking at stats, I know in my mind if they are Hall of Fame or not.

                  It's all black and white to me. For Reggie its Yes. His impact on the game due to his big moments alone make him a Hall of Famer.
                  Good is the enemy of Great


                  We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
                  -- Frank Vogel.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                    this is deplorable.
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      As I said in Peck's thread, any Hall that doesn't have Slick isn't worth our respect to begin with.

                      Also, I've never understand the "not a first ballot" argument. As long as we're talking about a player who's career is over, either they deserve to make it or not. Any voting process where someone's career is not judged worthy one year but is the next, when nothing has changed in the interim, is inherently flawed.
                      Thank you! Why make a player wait... especially if he's had a better career than the other nominees? It doesn't make much sense at all. That should be the only reason a player doesn't make it on the first ballot - because there are more deserving players on the nomination list.

                      The Dominique argument is stupid too! He should have been inducted on the first ballot. This is a complete and utter shock to me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                        So who are the "finalists" if Reggie is not? I couldn't seem to figure this out.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                          I would not have been surprised if he didn't make it in, but I am shocked he isn't a finalist. 'Nique was on the final ballot even though he didn't make it that first time, as I recall.

                          Not being a finalist signifies very much that he is completely out of mind HoF-wise and may indicate he won't get in.

                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                            Some of you are missing the point. The ridiculous part of this whole thing is not that Reggie isn't going to go in the hall as a 1st ballot guy. The ridiculous part is that he isn't even being considered as a finalist to see if he can be voted in on his try. When you look at the players who are finalists this year, it makes the whole Hall of Fame voters committee look like absolute morons.

                            Do I think that Reggie is a first ballot Hall of Famer? Meh, maybe or maybe not. Do I think that Reggie should at least be up for consideration to be in the Hall of Fame? You bet your *** I do, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                              In my opinion, Reggie is likely a victim of being from a small market with no championship and likely a slew of voters who never paid much attention to the Pacers as a result of those factors. All they probably see from Reggie is a souped up Robert "Big Shot Bob" Horry who happened to score more points. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth.

                              I guess that is why the hall of fame (yes, it deserves no capitalization from me anymore) is exactly that - a hall of fame as opposed to a true recognition of accomplishments on the basketball court.

                              What a power trip it must be for those who deny first ballot status, especially to a player who ended up 14th on the all time scorers list on top of his clutch accomplishments despite willfully deferring to his teammates to keep them more involved for the good of the team and enhancing its performance.

                              Huck the fall and the voters who carried out this hatchet job.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                                As long as Stainonajock Tidewa****outakoff the 1972 Olmpic Russian basketball team locker room assistant gets in I'm ok with it.
                                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X