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

Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

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

  • Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

    I posted this in another thread and didn't get a response.. I am just curious as they all put up some big time stats and won three titles together.

    Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
    General question: How good were Mel Daniels, Roger Brown, and George McGinnis in their primes? I wasn't around so I'm curious. They put up some huge numbers on good teams so they must have been pretty dang good.
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...mcginge01.html

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...brownro01.html
    (Look at his playoff numbers)

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...danieme01.html

    So here's a little survey I guess:

    1.) Who of the three were the best?

    2.) Who do they remind you of in todays NBA?

    3.) Is there any footage of them online?

    4.) Are they Hall Of Fame caliber players?

    Thanks

  • #2
    Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

    1. Subjective question but I would say Mel Daniels was the best as a whole, George McGinnis was the most dominant at one time and I think Roger Brown was as good in the clutch as any player I have ever seen.

    2. Would have to think about that

    3. I'm sure there is somewhere

    4. Mel Daniels definitely belongs on the HOF

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

      My grandfather always claimed McGinnis was the best, but like you I have no real way to tell. I have some random family connection to McGinnis and hung out with for awhile once when I was a kid, he seemed like a great guy. He signed a red, white, and blue basketball for me too.

      I seem to recall there is little to no footage of the ABA. They may have broadcast some of The playoffs but I think that's it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

        My memories of Big Mac are the strongest, but I'd have to say Rajah was the best.
        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


        • #5
          Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
          My grandfather always claimed McGinnis was the best, but like you I have no real way to tell. I have some random family connection to McGinnis and hung out with for awhile once when I was a kid, he seemed like a great guy. He signed a red, white, and blue basketball for me too.

          I seem to recall there is little to no footage of the ABA. They may have broadcast some of The playoffs but I think that's it.
          I get a chance to talk to McGinnis every now and then because he does business with my place of employment. I would say that in my own personal "nice people I deal with on a regular to semi-regular basis" list he's in the top 5 or 10 percent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

            I remember when a pro basketball mag was saying George was as good as Dr. J. He did have some really great years.

            Mel Daniels was a very good center and should be in hall of fame.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post

              3.) Is there any footage of them online?
              http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=60345

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                Aha! Thanks!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                  I saw them all play frequently on TV. No doubt in my mind that Mel Daniels was the best to ever put on a Pacer uniform. He could have played on any team then or now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                    They dont work youtube took them down

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                      I wish ABAdays was around to answer this.


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                        I was listening in on Mark and Slick during a broadcast and one of the two said that Paul George was very similar to "Rajah" Brown himself. I do not see it at all though, but I digress.

                        Billy Keller is a player from the ABA Pacers who reminds me a lot of that Freddette kid out of BYU. They both have very nice form on their jumpshot and they way that they can take off-balance shots and make them.

                        As Kevin Garnett has aged, his post game is similar to Mel Daniels (Mel had a sweeping hook of beauty and touch though; something that Garnett, nor anyone in the league, has). Of course Mel was an infinitely times better rebounder, but other than that Garnett and Mel are alike.

                        I will have to think about a comparison for McGinnis.
                        ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                          I had a chance to talk to Slick after a Pacer game. He told me that he's either played with, coached, or announced for almost all the great Small Forwards in NBA history. He then smiled and said "Roger was as good or better than any of them!" When he played with Daniels, it was Roger who was the "go to guy".
                          Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                            http://hoopshype.com/articles/brown_friedman.htm

                            Ankle breaker and shot maker
                            by David Friedman / December 27, 2004

                            Roger Brown starred at Brooklyn's Wingate High. In 1959, he outscored Connie Hawkins 38-18 in the New York City Championship game at Madison Square Garden, but Hawkins' Boys High prevailed 62-59. Brown signed with the University of Dayton, but never played college basketball. He and Hawkins were falsely implicated for being involved with Jack Molinas, a former college basketball star turned mobster who paid players to shave points. Hawkins and Brown were banned by the NCAA and the NBA.

                            Hawkins played in the short-lived American Basketball League (ABL) and then spent several years touring with the Harlem Globetrotters before leading the Pittsburgh Pipers to the championship in the ABA's first season (1967-68). He later reached a settlement agreement with the NBA and became an All-Star with the Phoenix Suns. In 1992, Hawkins was inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.

                            Brown's life took a different path. He worked in a General Motors plant in Dayton for five years, declining an opportunity to join the ABL because he could make more money working for GM. This proved to be a wise decision when the league folded during its second season.

                            Brown signed with the ABA's Indiana Pacers in 1967, realizing that this might be his last opportunity in professional basketball. Most players who do not play college basketball struggle during their first professional seasons. Brown jumped from high school to pro ball without missing a beat, averaging 19.6 ppg and making the All-Star team as a rookie despite playing only AAU ball after his prep days.

                            Pacers' broadcaster Bob "Slick" Leonard coached the team from 1968 until 1980: "Roger Brown was a money player. Anytime the game was on the line, Roger was always there. Roger had tremendous ability. One of the greatest small forwards to ever play the game. I've seen everyone that came down the pike in the last 50 years – playing against them, coaching them or broadcasting them. Roger Brown deserves to be in the Hall of Fame."

                            Leonard used an isolation play that took advantage of Brown's one-on-one skills as well as his passing ability.

                            "We gave him the ball, isolated him and put all four players above the free throw line on the other side of the floor. If they came with a double team, we just cut the man whose defender left toward the basket and he would get a layup."

                            If the opponent tried to guard Brown one-on-one, things got ugly.

                            "He had some unbelievable moves," Leonard remembers. "I've seen guys who were guarding him fall down. He had reverse dribbles and stuff. Matter of fact, one time when Larry Bird was younger he was working out with Roger over at Butler Fieldhouse and he wanted Roger to teach him that baseline move that Roger had. He could paralyze you."

                            Roger Brown enjoyed his greatest season in 1969-70, winning the Playoff MVP after averaging 28.5 ppg, 10.1 rpg and 5.6 apg in the postseason. In the last three games of the ABA Finals versus the Los Angeles Stars, Brown carried the Pacers to their first title, scoring 53, 39 and 45 points – including an ABA Finals single-game record seven three-pointers. Brown did all this while being guarded by the Stars' Willie Wise, whom Julius Erving has frequently mentioned as one of the players who guarded him better.

                            Like Connie Hawkins, Roger Brown sued the NBA and received an out-of-court monetary settlement. Brown could have jumped to the more established league – but that never crossed his mind.

                            "I want to clear my name," he said. "I have no intention of jumping."

                            Brown felt tremendous loyalty to his team and to the Indianapolis community. In fact, while he was still an active player he was elected to a seat on the Indianapolis City Council.

                            The Pacers won their second ABA title in 1972 when Brown outscored Rick Barry, then a member of the New York Nets, 32-23 in the sixth game of the ABA Finals.

                            "Roger was an outstanding player," Barry said. "He certainly had a terrific basketball career and probably is one of the more underrated guys that most people don't know a whole lot about. He is not really given the recognition that he deserves for the career that he had. I sent something in when they asked me to do it when they were trying to get some support for him for the Hall of Fame because, based upon the other people who are in the Hall of Fame, I certainly feel that he is deserving of it based upon his skill level."

                            Mel Daniels played center for those Pacer teams. According to the two-time ABA MVP, "those who did not see Roger Brown or didn't know him, missed a treat."

                            "He was so good one-on-one that I remember defenders actually screaming for help. He actually dislocated or broke eight guys' ankles (with a) crossover dribble move. He would look at you and put the ball down and look at you again and if you made a move, he would react opposite to that move and get to the basket. Sometimes it was so easy for him, he would laugh at people and miss the layup because he was laughing."

                            Darnell Hillman was an outstanding shot blocker for the Pacers and he offers a similar description of Brown's devastating offensive arsenal.

                            "As clever and quick as he was, Roger had the uncanny ability to make you sometimes turn around in circles and he hasn't even left his spot. You think, 'I've lost him, I've got to find him and recover,' and he hasn't even left his spot. He'd laugh about it," Hillman notes. "In three years of playing Roger, I only beat him twice. I played Roger every day, either before or after practice. (At first) I leaned too much on my jumping ability, rather than the technique and art of playing position defense. Playing against him taught me how to stay on the floor and learn the different tricks. One of the things that Roger taught me was that if you are guarding an offensive player, most guys give away when they are going to shoot the basketball – watch the left hand. When he is getting ready to shoot the basketball, it's got to come to the ball on the right hand, then you want to close up. When he taught me that, it improved my ability to close out on guys and really change their shots."

                            Before he won four NBA scoring titles, a young George Gervin learned a lot from playing against Brown.

                            "He probably had one of the best first steps in basketball," Gervin said. "You've really got to understand basketball to know what I'm saying when I say 'first step.' Matter of fact, I learned that from him when I played against Roger Brown. He used to pivot and make you move and he isn't going anywhere. It was probably one of the best moves that I picked up, and when I went to the guard spot it really helped to take my game to the next level."

                            Gervin wishes that today's players emulated Brown's game.

                            "What guys don't realize today is that first step is everything because if I can get the first step on you then you will never catch me. And if you do catch me then all I have to do is fake and you will go for the fake because you are trying to catch up, you are in a recovery situation. That's where Roger was good. He forced you into a recovery situation all the time, so you had to go for his fakes."

                            Gervin contrasts Brown's use of the first step with the way that many current players set up their moves: "Dribbling that ball five, six, seven, eight seconds is a travesty. What are the other four guys doing, standing there watching? A lot of the guys pound the ball today, but we used to move the ball around and when we got it, we took that first step and made something happen. So we (retired legends) hope and pray that the guys understand that you really need to give the ball up. If you're not going to make your move, give it up, go back and get it. Don't just stand there and pound it."

                            Brown's body began to break down during the 1972-73 season and he spent part of the 1973 ABA Finals in traction because of a back injury. He was never again the same player, retiring two years later. Brown never averaged 25 ppg in the regular season, but he played on well-balanced teams that had several potent scoring threats. His ability to score at will in the clutch suggests that he could have put up bigger regular season numbers had the Pacers needed him to do so. Hall of Fame voters should consider a player's overall impact, not just raw statistics.

                            Brown died of liver cancer in 1997. Erving eloquently summarizes Roger Brown's legacy: "When I first got into the ABA, Roger Brown and the Indiana Pacers were the best franchise in the league. They had the guys with the biggest reputations, they had big game players in terms of clutch play – but Roger Brown was the go-to guy and when you are the go-to guy on a team with Darnell Hillman, George McGinnis, Bob Netolicky, Mel Daniels, you are talking about a pretty special player. His reputation coming up paralleled the achievements of Connie Hawkins, including the negative experience of being blackballed from the NBA. Then, he played with the Pacers and led them to titles, in addition to being head and shoulders above others as a citizen, running for political office and winning. It's a great basketball story. He contributed in more ways that just basketball but his basketball contributions are far from being insignificant and they are enough to warrant him being in the Hall."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Question about Roger Brown, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels

                              Here we go. This article is from 6-7 years ago, but still useful in describing Roger's game. It's hard to find a comparison because of how good he was. This should also answer a question or two on whether or not he should be in the Hall of Fame.

                              Yeah, he was that good. I feel motivated to change my avatar to a Rajah one now. If Paul George has potential of Rajah, than we are in good hands going forward.
                              Last edited by O'Braindead; 02-20-2011, 06:14 PM. Reason: tsm612 already posted the article
                              ...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X