Tweet
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Chris Mullin before Reggie. Biggest crock of
I've ever seen. :shakehead
Chris Mullin before Reggie. Biggest crock of
I've ever seen. :shakehead
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.
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
-
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Everyone keeps saying Mullin over Reggie, but that's not relevant. Chris Mullin retired 10 years ago and Reggie only 6. Reggie will get in in less years than it took Mullin because he is a more deserving candidate, but the amount of time you've waited is taken in to account for the hall. Reggie wasn't a first ballot hall of famer, but he's likely second or third ballot.
Artis Gilmore- way overdue.
Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
This is the problem with the system of the Hall. If the player is deserving, he should get in regardless of when he's retired. I mean, what's the bearing of being retired 10 years ago as opposed to being retired 6 years ago? He's (Reggie) already in the consideration, and is widely recognized by his colleagues in the business, so if the requirement is "he should be retired this long" is shallow if you ask me.Originally posted by Isaac View Post
Congratulations to the new HOFs. Mullin, Artis, Sabonis and Rodman really deserved to be there.
As for those who are saying that Rodman is not deserving, well let's not be blindsided by his off-court antics. He was the best of the best in rebounding and defense (he has successfully guarded guards like Jordan to a top-notch PFs and Cs like Malone and Shaq). He maybe one-dimensional, but he's so great at his one-dimensional skill. Plus, he's been an integral part of the 5 championships his teams had. It's not like he was just some 10-12th man who played sparingly to hack somebody from the opposing team.Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Well him having 7 should almost definently make him into the hall if Satch could make it with 8. To me winning 7 with different teams in different roles, in different times in his career is really tough, I think I forgot his last championship with the Spurs because he barely played besides cheap-shotting Nash.Originally posted by Richard_Skull View Post
But to me there's no doubt he should get in with 7 titles in this type of league, as you said, it's the most by any non-Celtic player."It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."
----------------- Reggie MillerComment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Agree to disagree. I think it's a fair system, a guy like Mullin deserves to be in the hall, but doesn't deserve to be mentioned with first ballot hofers. When you talk about the hall of fame, and players who are enshrined in it, I think it's fine to have something quantitative to tell you, ok Michael Jordan got in on his first try, and Reggie on his second. Both deserve to be recognized, but Michael earned the right to wait a year less than Reggie.Originally posted by 15th parallel View PostComment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Originally posted by Isaac View Post
Ai ai ai...
This is exactly the thing that makes the HoF an UN-fair sham of an institution.
Oh... "So and so" (who has been retired for a number of years) didn't deserve to be in it LAST year, but THIS year it's a totally new ballgame let me tell you!
It's a ridiculous and insanely biased double standard.
Look at this year for example:
Satch Sanders was a member of 8 Celtic championship teams.
He has a career total of 8,766 points. Now I am not a big Celtics historian, and I am not discounting that he may have been a "Jeff Foster" type player for those Celtic teams... But I highly doubt that he was a significant difference maker in all (if any) of those championship teams with his career numbers looking the way they look. Again I could be mistaken, but this is just an observation based on NUMBERS (which is apparently all the HoF cares about)
So you are honestly telling me that this guy deserves to be inducted into the hall this year over a player like Reggie Miller??!?!?
I don't care if Satch has been eligible for 1 year or 100... There is NO way to justify admitting him and excluding a player like Reggie Miller or a figure like Slick Leonard.
Hell, if we are admitting players for being marginal players on a ton of championship teams, why haven't Luc Longley and Bill Wennington been inducted. BJ Armstrong perhaps? Rick Fox?! DEVEAN GEORGE?!?!?!
When will this insanity end?
Players like Reggie not getting in for X number of years due to this political BS posturing where some enigmatic entity deems them "unworthy until they've waited sufficiently" is flat out WRONG.Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Instead of inducting Sanders as an individual, why not just induct those Celtic teams as a squad ala Dream Team 1?"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
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
See now that actually would make some sense.Originally posted by Sandman21 View PostComment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
You do realize this is how every HOF works and has been that way forever right? Its not like the basketball HOF is the first to do it and just started. And I think it is perfectly fine to define a player as a first ballot HOF'er or not. Reggie wasn't on the same level as MJ, Malone and so on. Why should he be recognized as if he was?Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
And you don't know much about Satch do you? Sure he wasn't a big scorer, but there is much more to the game than basketball. Do some research on the guy before you just go and call him a marginal player. The man was best known for his defense. He won 8 rings, which is the third most all time. He was viewed as a key piece on the Celtics and has his number retired by the franchise. Not to mention he played in 450 consecutive games.
Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Of course I realize this. However, since we are talking about the basketball HoF, I don't really think mentioning the others is relevant.Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
Furthermore, just because "all the rest do it too" does not make it the right thing to do.
And to address your other point... The HoF does NOT "Define" what makes a first ballot HoF'er and what does not... It's all 'cloak and dagger' secret-society politics.
The public never knows how or why certain people are chosen or not chosen.
Just look at what happened with Reggie... His lack of inclusion on the finalist ballot was leading news on all the sporting websites and tv shows, because it was such a
shocking event for anyone who knows anything about basketball...
So no, they don't "Define" anything.
Nope, as I said directly in my post, I don't...Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
I have no doubt that he was known for his defense since his offensive stats are mediocre at best. Ahhhhh, well you make a good observation that his number is retired by the almighty Celtics...
So following this logic, maybe we should retire Dale Davis and even Jeff Foster's numbers... Then maybe the hall will come calling for them too... OH WAIT, I forgot, those guys haven't been a part of any championship teams so their impact on their teams is meaningless and completely moot.
Reggie's number is retired here because he was the face, heart and soul of the Indiana Pacers for a very, VERY long time. Not only that, but his play on the court single-handedly brought Indiana Pacers basketball from a bottom-feeder of an NBA franchise into a perennial contender.
NOT only that, but his clutch playoff moments are literally the thing of legend in the game of basketball. Reggie Miller has not one, not two, but MANY individual plays that will live on in NBA lore for generations to come. The same cannot be said for many other players, even many who are already enshrined IN the Hall of Fame.
But Reggie never won a championship despite carrying his team deep into the playoffs many times. So I guess this means that all of his accomplishments lose 75% or more of their "Hall Deserving-Ness" potency, right?
See what I am saying? It's such a convoluted system. A good suggestion was just made here on the thread. Induct that entire Celtics team AS a team. They had an amazing run, no arguing that. Induct them as a team and honor them for their teams accomplishments. Don't go throwing every player in regardless of their qualifications ASIDE from their place on that team.
I don't care how many games he played in a row, or how many championship teams he was the "Jeff Foster" of... That should not earn him an (INDIVIDUAL) place in the Hall of Fame over Reggie Miller.Last edited by TMJ31; 04-05-2011, 07:58 PM.Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Yeah let's put Dale and Foster in because they were key components in helping the Pacers win 8, I mean 5, I mean oh wait, 0 titles. Don't over look the fact that Satch has won the third most NBA championships out of every player in the NBA's history. Dale Davis being a defensive player on a team that went to one nba finals and lost is no where near Satch being a great defensive player and winning 8 championships. He won 8 ****ing championships. Helping your team win one is one thing, but helping them win 8 is a completely different story. Kobe is the only guy that might come close to that. I don't think we will ever see anyone hit that number again. Don't sell the man short because he didn't score 20,000 points. You know for a fact that winning championships, especially multiple, especially 8, is going to put you in a much better light than someone who has the same stats and didn't win one. There is more to the game than stats man. A fan of Reggie should know this considering his stats aren't that special. What made him special were his clutch moments. What made Satch special is his defense and helping his team win 8 championships.
It is clear the HOF likes players who win championships. Satch getting in has absolutely nothing to do with Reggie. It wasn't him or Reggie. The HOF can never "define" what a first ballot HOF player is because of how much the game changes from era to era. Its completely subjective. You can't come up with a fair formula to judge players over the history of the NBA. But by electing what players from each era get first ballot and which ones don't they do "define" what a first ballot player is. Not many players make it on the first ballot. It isn't a slight imo to not make it first ballot. It's more of an honor because that truly means you were one of the best of the best. Reggie was not one of the best of the best. He wasn't in the same class as MJ, Malone, Barkley, Stockton and so on. He was in the group below that. Mentioning the others is relevant because it shows thats how HOF's work.
Here is a question for you. Is Donovan McNabb a HOF football player? Especially first ballot? Because if Reggie Miller is a first ballot HOF, Donovan McNabb better be on that first ballot too. But he wont be, largely because he hasn't won an title. And he is a fringe ballot guy as of right now.
Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
It should be noted that Satch was the guy guarding West, Baylor and Pettit in the playoffs every year. He took on a hall of fame forward almost every night.
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, 2004Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
I sure hope Gilmore goes in as a Kentucky Colonel!Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Wow, he's tall. Did they have to skin a horse to make that coat??Originally posted by Peck View PostAt long last one of the most glaring omissions from the HoF will be rectified.
Long Live The A-Train!!!!!!
Comment
-
Re: Rodman, Gilmore, Mullin and Sabonis make the hall of fame...
Wow, I never thought about that.Originally posted by threein73 View Post
Man that would be sweet.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
Comment