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: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

    http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2...mplaining.html


    Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

    FEBRUARY 19, 2011
    BY: ZACHARIAH BLOTT

    So Reggie Miller just got left off the list of 12 Hall of Fame finalists for 2011, and damn near everyone can't believe it. Fans are having a really hard time believing one of the game’s best 3-point shooters and clutch playoff performers ever isn’t even on the list of finalists. I’m here to tell you: thank you anonymous voters.

    Let’s start with the obvious. You don’t care about the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame. I’m guessing that if you have never lived within 50 miles of it, you never went. I’m also guessing if you had the choice of a weekend trip in Springfield, MA, or in Cooperstown, NY, you’re headed to the Baseball Hall of Fame – and I’m talking to an audience of basketball fans. It’s not the NBA Hall of Fame, but a generic basketball hall with 59 enshrined contributors, 8 teams, 13 refs, 82 coaches, and less than 90 players who ever played in an NBA, BAA, or ABA game. Think about that: all the other people you don’t care about far outnumber the players who actually got you interested in the game – and oh yeah, 25 of those players primarily played in the 40’s and 50’s, so many are in there for their “pioneer” status.

    OK, we got that out of the way. Now on to the supposed atrocity of Reggie Miller’s rejection in his first year of eligibility for the Hall. I’m going to keep this real simple; I’m not going to do a full-blown investigation of every moment and statistic and all of that. Either he showed HOF dominance during his career or he didn’t. Not a few moments – there are 50 to 75 guys playing right now who can give us great moments that win some games. Actual HOF dominance.

    His career stats are not dominant. 18 ppg, 3 apg, 3 rpg. No question his 3FG% and FT% are very good (career .395 shooter from deep – not as great as you thought it was, is it?), but he was almost always his team’s top scorer, and he averaged only 18 ppg for his career. He finished in the top-10 in ppg only once in his career: 8th in 1989-90 with 24.6 ppg. As far as his biggest skill--hitting three-pointers--goes, he wasn't exactly dominant. More like consistently above-average. Miller once lead the league in makes by a slim margin, once tied for the league lead in makes, and never lead the league in 3-point percentage (was 3rd in 1993-94, his only top-5 finish in that category). That’s how un-dominant his stats were. Playoffs, you say? 21 ppg, 2.5 apg, and 3 rpg. Still not dominant. Outside of his stats we have a bad passer (for a guard), a mediocre-at-best defender, and a guy you couldn’t design your offense around. I say that last part because he had to run off screens to get open for catch-and-shoots, which ties up your big men on the perimeter and forces the PG to stall with the ball until he’s open. You don’t win championships that way, and he didn’t.

    But wasn’t he considered great when he was playing? 15 seasons, 5 All-Star Games. Huh, that isn’t that impressive. Joe Johnson has 5 in 10 years. Chauncey Billups has 5 in 14 years. Steve Nash has 7 in 15 years. And those are just guards from last year’s game.

    Maybe he was considered dominant by another measure? Not MVP voting. Miller received MVP votes in only two seasons. He finished 13th in 2000 (with 1 vote, tied with Darrell Armstrong, Michael Finley, and teammate Jalen Rose) and 16th in 1998 (with 2 votes, tied with teammate Rik Smits). Just so you didn't miss that, Miller never received more MVP votes than one of his teammates. No, nothing even remotely resembling dominance there.

    How about making All-NBA teams? Miller finished on the 3rd-team three times. That’s it. Over 15 seasons, he was considered one of the league’s 15 best players only three times, and never one of its 10 best. In 1995, he got the sixth and final guard spot, behind Anfernee Hardaway, John Stockton, Gary Payton, Mitch Richmond, and Clyde Drexler (Jordan would have knocked Miller off the list) – 4 of those are of the “no crap” variety, and the other is Richmond. In 1996, Miller finished behind AH, MJ, GP, JS, and was on the third-team with Richmond. No dice in 1997 due to Tim Hardaway, MJ, GP, Richmond, AH, and JS. Then he made the 3rd-team for the final time in 1998, behind MJ, GP, Tim Hardaway, Rod Strickland, and joined Richmond on the final squad. I point out Hardaway, Richmond, and Strickland specifically because no one thinks of them as HOF’ers, yet that’s who Miller was finishing beside or behind regularly. In fact, those three all made the NBA’s 2nd-team or better at least once – but that was never the case for Miller. See those “no crap” guys? Those are your real HOF’ers (minus Anfernee Hardaway’s unfortunate injury issues that derailed his career).

    I really don’t need to go further (but I will add that Basketball-Reference's HOF calculator gives Miller a 5.5% chance, good for 190th all-time, right in between Larry Siegfried and Dan Roundfield - oh yeah). He wasn’t dominant. Some dominant moments? Sure. Some shots and playoff series you remember? Yes. Hall of Fame career? Not even close.

    Just for fun, let’s see how well he matches up with the other guards in the HOF (32 total). I’m only going to look at those whose careers weren’t primarily played in the 40’s and 50’s (down to 24). And let’s be honest, we already know he’s not Jordan, or Magic, or West, or Oscar, so I’ll only compare him to the fringe HOF guards who some people might say Miller is better than. Keep in mind that the 3rd-team was added to the All-NBA squads in 1989, so most of these players were fighting for a top-10 selection, which Miller never accomplished. Also, MVP ballots went from voting for top-3 to top-5 in 1981, so it was much harder to get votes before then (Miller never finished top-3 on a ballot).

    K.C. Jones, 1958-67
    Jones only played 9 seasons, but he was the starting PG on 7 straight Champions (and played on another), was a great defender, and he finished in the top-10 in apg four times, placing as high as 3rd two times. It’s tough to call this a HOF career because really he had the good fortune of playing beside Bill Russell – it’s truly difficult to rate any of Russ’ teammates. It’s not a stretch to say part of the reason he got voted in in 1989 was due to recently coaching the 1984 and 1986 Championship Celtics; everyone had those warm fuzzy “he’s a winner” vibes going at the time. Still, I got Jones over Miller.

    Tom Gola, 1955-66
    His nickname was “Mr. All-Around,” so I’m willing to bet he was more than a one-trick pony like Miller. He played in 5 All-Star Games in 10 years, made the NBA’s 2nd-team once, played for a Championship team, finished in the top-10 in rebounds once, and finished in the top-10 in assists four times. Gola certainly doesn’t overwhelm you as a Hall of Famer, but the voters love their old-timers, and he’s also partially there because of his stand-out college career (first in history to reach 2,000 points and 2,000 rebounds, is still the top collegiate rebounder ever with 2,201). That alone makes this a bad comparison, but Gola still reached more milestones of dominance. Gola over Miller.

    Dave Bing, 1966-78
    Bing played in 7 All-Star Games, earned All-NBA 1st-Team selection twice, 2nd-team once, received MVP votes in 5 different seasons (including finishing between 3rd and 6th three times), was a top-10 scorer four times (as high as 2nd), and a top-10 assist man 8 times. Not even close: Bing over Miller.

    Gail Goodrich, 1965-79
    Goodrich played in 5 All-Star Games, made the NBA’s 1st-team in 1974, and was the leading scorer on the 1972 Championship Lakers that featured Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, and Elgin Baylor. Also, he was a top-10 ppg finisher 5 times, and a top-10 apg finisher 4 times. Goodrich over Miller.

    Calvin Murphy, 1970-83
    Murphy’s HOF credentials as a pro are flimsy. A big part of his inclusion was his absolutely stellar prep career (33 ppg over three college seasons, and 49 ppg on the freshmen team before he was allowed to play varsity – plus he was a 2-time high school All-American) and everyone liked that he was an accomplished player despite only standing 5-feet-9, so a comparison to Miller’s credentials is a really bad one to make. Murphy played in one All-Star Game, finished in the top-10 in scoring twice, top-3 in apg twice, top-10 in steals per game once and was also well known for his great shooting. It’s really tough to argue that he had a HOF career just based on his NBA dominance (he didn’t), but he certainly was more well-rounded than Miller. Miller may have a better argument than Murphy simply based on their pro careers, but Murphy would have certainly gotten some MVP votes in 1974, ‘76, ‘78, and maybe even ‘79 and ‘80 if the ballots were top-5 then instead of top-3, so it's not hard to say the opposite is true. This one might be even, but understand that part of Murphy’s inclusion is because of his pre-NBA exploits.

    That’s about it as far as fringe Hall of Famer guards, and old-timers will gladly tell you that Bing was the real deal and is not fringe at all (I only put him in there because many younger fans don’t know him and might assume Miller is better than someone they don't know). Most of these guys got some consideration for other things--college careers, coaching, being short--yet their pro dominance usually outshined Miller’s anyway.

    I hope the anonymous committee continues to keep Miller out because he just didn’t show that he was a HOF-caliber player. We love his highlights of clutch performances, but let’s not kid ourselves: he had some Hall of Fame moments, but nothing even close to a Hall of Fame career.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

    This guy assumes a lot of things.
    Super Bowl XLI Champions
    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

      Whoever wrote this article shouldn't consider themselves a basketball fan. Reggie is for sure HOF talent in my book. The only thing that the author focused on was pure stats and other unnecessary information. He didn't mention anything about his clutch shots, leadership, loyalty, and his true love for the game. Even if Reggie never makes the HOF, he will always be a legend to me.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

        This will go over well on a Pacers fan website.

        psssssssssssssssssttttt....while I don't share his attitude about keeping Reggie out, overall the article is correct.


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

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

          Reggie will make the Hall of Fame eventually, whether this guy likes it or not, so I wouldn't worry about it.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

            Can't wait for one more 20 page discussion about Reggie and HOF with people calling each other fan boys and worse. What would we do without them?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

              He made Indiana relevant during the 90's. That's good enough for me.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                Reggie will make the Hall of Fame eventually, whether this guy likes it or not, so I wouldn't worry about it.
                All I can say to that is not even making the ballot calls into question whether Reggie will ever be in the HoF.

                Unless each voter ASSUMED everyone else would vote for Reggie making the ballot and so each of them left him off thinking everyone else would include him... then it would seem this group of anonymous voters aren't seeing Miller as HoF material. There was an outcry about him missing from the nominations but I don't think it was big enough to cause anyone to rethink their votes. Not when the vote is anonymous in the first place....
                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

                • #9
                  Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  All I can say to that is not even making the ballot calls into question whether Reggie will ever be in the HoF.

                  Unless each voter ASSUMED everyone else would vote for Reggie making the ballot and so each of them left him off thinking everyone else would include him... then it would seem this group of anonymous voters aren't seeing Miller as HoF material. There was an outcry about him missing from the nominations but I don't think it was big enough to cause anyone to rethink their votes. Not when the vote is anonymous in the first place....
                  They knew if he was on the ballot he'd get in. They didn't think he was worthy of being a "first ballot hall of famer" so they made sure he didn't get on the ballot. He'll be in the hall of fame within the next couple years. I'd bet my life on it.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                    *Sigh*

                    Not even going there again.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                      Still, RALPH SAMPSON?
                      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                        But but but... Ralph Sampson made the SECOND all nba team once! And he won shiny awards in college. Sampson over Miller.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                          This guy's stats only seem to regard Reggie's regular season and completely disregard Reggie's almost 8-point PPG jump in the playoffs and propelling his team to be a perennial playoff contender, not to mention his lengthy playoff performance resume. The playoffs were where Reggie earned his trip to the HOF. Reggie also had showmanship, something that very few players possess, and doesn't show up in the stat sheet. Players like Reggie bring viewership to the NBA, he instills interest, which is a huge factor. He hit shots that you are used to seeing players miss at times you expect them to miss them.

                          I also want to point out that most of the "guys" who beat him to the NBA All-team and what-not did not receive a nearly season-long farewell tour of standing ovations in opposing arenas and a retirement ceremony like Reggie did. Reggie also played during a "golden age" of guards... look at the talent during his playtime. Of course there'd be a logjam, and the stat guys would get in first. Mitch Richmond had better stats --- does anyone in the NBA seriously believe Mitch was anywhere close to Reggie's level, especially in the playoffs? There's about 50 guys playing the NBA right now who have better "stats" than Reggie (like Danny Granger), and don't come anywhere close to Reggie's impact or are able to achieve Reggie's level of play in the playoffs. The Pacers reached the playoffs (and seriously contended) in 16 of Reggie's 18 years here and we've really never came close since he retired. That's tremendous. Seriously, the fans recognize what he did, stats be damned. The Detroit Pistons called a time-out just to give Reggie a standing O. Who gets that? Did Mitch Richmond get that amount of universal respect? How about The Glove? Tim Hardaway? Penny? Rod Strickland? Heck no. They retired without a peep and frankly (outside of Payton) had fairly forgettable careers despite putting up some stats.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-28-2011, 10:01 AM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                            This is why Ignore Thread was invented.

                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Reggie Miller: Not A Hall of Famer, Stop Complaining

                              Stats are stats, as always. If it were simply stats that determine hall of fame eligibility, the inclusions would probably change, for the worse in my view, and other exclusions would likely occur.

                              A well reasoned argument by the author of the article, but plainly he didn't know how the Pacers were built during Reggie's career, didn't understand the offense that the Pacers ran and the fact that Reggie was utilized both as a scoring threat and as a decoy due to his ability to constantly move long distances without the ball and force defenses to not just shift but actually move significantly to follow him, allowing other players to become more effective than a traditional offense would have allowed, and his coaches tended to understand that balanced attacks would be beneficial as opposed to simply designing the offense to be Reggie-centric despite his obviously being the best offensive weapon on the team.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X