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

Pacers looking to trade Danny?

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

  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

    I do pick and choose the stats that I use, but it is certainly not because some support a position and others don't. Some statistics just aren't clearly telling me anything. I am sure they're giving some sort of valuable information, I'm just not sure what. Individual Plus Minus I'm sure could be used in a valuable way. I'm just not sure how. West's plus minus versus the Heat was even and the other 4 starters were all high hovering around +20 I believe it was. Maybe thats because West didn't play well. Or maybe it's just because he was on the court when Barbosa was projectile vomiting every where.

    Other stats like TS% are straight forward and simply cannot be disputed. When you're judging a player who's main priority is scoring, it is very important that he is doing it efficiently. TS% tells us that.

    It is enlightening. Like all of us I'm very disappointed when I see Danny shoot 42% for the season. However, when I compare his overall efficiency scoring the ball to Kobe Bryant, and he is more efficient than I know it is not near as bad as some wish to believe.

    Someone on here was suggesting that 3 years ago when Joe was younger he was probably easily the superior player to Danny while he has regressed now to the point they're equal.

    Actually three years ago I'd say Danny was clearly the better player on offense. (though that was a time were defense was simply not a focus). Danny was taking the same amount of shots as Joe, and scoring three more points per game. That is huge.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
      This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

      Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...
      JJ really didn't have that great of a season, I saw quite a few Hawks games, and many Hawks fans would tell you the same.

      And yes a stat like TS% is pretty much bulletproof, and far more accurate than comparing raw FG% without taking into account 3 pointers and free throws.
      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

        To further support my point- I've just never taken volume scoring that seriously. I believe almost anyone can score 25 a game. But few can do it efficiently. That's the difference between wins and losses. Think about it. Every team is going to get a certain amount of shots per game. It doesn't matter if you spread out the shots equally between starters like the Pacers or you have Wade/LBJ/Bosh take all of the shots. Every team is getting the shots. So if you do it efficiently you help. If you don't, you probably aren't helping all that much unless the other team is just shooting even worse. I mean this is fairly obvious.

        Think about this: Kobe Bryant has been considered either the best or close to the best scorer of the last decade. I'd suggest his overall points only make it quite clear he just shoots more than other players.

        I think Dirk has been a superior scorer the last decade. While Kobe is clearly explosive, and we'll give him extra credit for a guy that can at times be absolutely unstoppable, we also have to be honest that over a playoff series or over a season he's a high volume shooter that isn't as efficient as the top 15 players in the NBA.

        Compare Dirk's championship team to almost every team Kobe has ever had. He's almost always had way more talent, he's almost always had defense around him. Dirk finally had a defensive squad around him for the first time in his career, and because he was an absolute offensive juggernaut he led his team to a championship. Kobe's shortcomings on offense have kept him from having more playoff wins than he could of have. That's just the truth.

        Now I'd still actually argue Kobe is probably a better player. I'm not saying he isn't. I think Kobe is better because over his career he's generally been an above average defender which is important. Dirk has not. This is why the only way Dirk could ever win a championship is if he was surrounded by defensive players that could make up for his shortcomings on that side of the court. Kobe has the luxury of being able to contribute to any team.

        With that said, if Kobe was as good as everyone says he would I'm quite certain he'd be much more successful than he was. He's been quite fortunate to have a ton of talent around him his entire career. More talent than any other NBA player could ever dream of. That is why he's been so successful.

        To clarify: The reason I compared the two was Kobe has had a higher PPG than Dirk though I believe Dirk has been much more deadly on offense.

        Edit - More fun with stats. Remember when all those blogs starting suggesting Reggie Miller maybe wasn't as good as we all thought and maybe shouldn't get into the Hall?? Only 18ppg his entire career! Compare that to a number of good players that don't belong in the hall right??

        TS% once again enlightens us and tells us why Reggie, who wasn't anywhere dominate like a super star, could help lead his teams to late in the playoffs. It shows why his teams were so good. Reggie has a career absurd, .60 TS%. Meaning No one ever got close to stopping Reggie from scoring. That's why he was so deadly.

        Now he wasn't a superstar, or all world player, but he was deadly on offense, and more deadly than guys he was compared to like Michael Finley and Mitch Richmond.
        Last edited by mattie; 08-28-2012, 07:49 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

          Originally posted by daschysta View Post
          JJ really didn't have that great of a season, I saw quite a few Hawks games, and many Hawks fans would tell you the same.
          Okay, I can't argue with that.

          And yes a stat like TS% is pretty much bulletproof, and far more accurate than comparing raw FG% without taking into account 3 pointers and free throws.
          The comparison was between TS% and eFG%. I explained why I prefer to use Danny's eFG% rather than his TS% a couple pages back. I'm sure you'll disagree, though.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

            I still can't believe people really think a one time all star is better than a six times all star only in PD I tell you
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

              I have had the phrase "Intuition over Integers" above my avatar for several months now.

              Coaches obviously use statistics quite a bit, and rightly so. But the best coaches will go with their intuition ultimately, even if the stats disagree. What the human mind and spirit can discern may be unmeasurable and subconscious, but it is very superior to computers and stat sheets.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                I have had the phrase "Intuition over Integers" above my avatar for several months now.

                Coaches obviously use statistics quite a bit, and rightly so. But the best coaches will go with their intuition ultimately, even if the stats disagree. What the human mind and spirit can discern may be unmeasurable and subconscious, but it is very superior to computers and stat sheets.
                Kind of like when Phil Jackson went with his intuition concerning corner three pointers. There's a real chance Phil Jackson cost the Lakers a championship because he went with his intuition instead of facts.

                http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...y-caspian-kang

                http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...y-caspian-kang

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  Kind of like when Phil Jackson went with his intuition concerning corner three pointers. There's a real chance Phil Jackson cost the Lakers a championship because he went with his intuition instead of facts.

                  http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...y-caspian-kang

                  http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...y-caspian-kang
                  You're seriously using Phil Jackson as an argument that coaches using intuition hurts their success. Maybe he'll let you borrow that 11th championship ring that he can't put on his finger.

                  I'm sorry, but Phil Jackson has earned the benefit of the doubt.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    To further support my point- I've just never taken volume scoring that seriously. I believe almost anyone can score 25 a game. But few can do it efficiently. That's the difference between wins and losses. Think about it. Every team is going to get a certain amount of shots per game. It doesn't matter if you spread out the shots equally between starters like the Pacers or you have Wade/LBJ/Bosh take all of the shots. Every team is getting the shots. So if you do it efficiently you help. If you don't, you probably aren't helping all that much unless the other team is just shooting even worse. I mean this is fairly obvious.

                    Think about this: Kobe Bryant has been considered either the best or close to the best scorer of the last decade. I'd suggest his overall points only make it quite clear he just shoots more than other players.

                    I think Dirk has been a superior scorer the last decade. While Kobe is clearly explosive, and we'll give him extra credit for a guy that can at times be absolutely unstoppable, we also have to be honest that over a playoff series or over a season he's a high volume shooter that isn't as efficient as the top 15 players in the NBA.

                    Compare Dirk's championship team to almost every team Kobe has ever had. He's almost always had way more talent, he's almost always had defense around him. Dirk finally had a defensive squad around him for the first time in his career, and because he was an absolute offensive juggernaut he led his team to a championship. Kobe's shortcomings on offense have kept him from having more playoff wins than he could of have. That's just the truth.

                    Now I'd still actually argue Kobe is probably a better player. I'm not saying he isn't. I think Kobe is better because over his career he's generally been an above average defender which is important. Dirk has not. This is why the only way Dirk could ever win a championship is if he was surrounded by defensive players that could make up for his shortcomings on that side of the court. Kobe has the luxury of being able to contribute to any team.

                    With that said, if Kobe was as good as everyone says he would I'm quite certain he'd be much more successful than he was. He's been quite fortunate to have a ton of talent around him his entire career. More talent than any other NBA player could ever dream of. That is why he's been so successful.

                    To clarify: The reason I compared the two was Kobe has had a higher PPG than Dirk though I believe Dirk has been much more deadly on offense.

                    Edit - More fun with stats. Remember when all those blogs starting suggesting Reggie Miller maybe wasn't as good as we all thought and maybe shouldn't get into the Hall?? Only 18ppg his entire career! Compare that to a number of good players that don't belong in the hall right??

                    TS% once again enlightens us and tells us why Reggie, who wasn't anywhere dominate like a super star, could help lead his teams to late in the playoffs. It shows why his teams were so good. Reggie has a career absurd, .60 TS%. Meaning No one ever got close to stopping Reggie from scoring. That's why he was so deadly.

                    Now he wasn't a superstar, or all world player, but he was deadly on offense, and more deadly than guys he was compared to like Michael Finley and Mitch Richmond.
                    Every successful, talented player won championships with other talented players around him. Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, they all played with an abundance of talented players. You can't say that 5 rings is not Kobe maximizing his potential. Yes he played with Shaq, but there wasn't much else on that first three peat. The two recent titles were with Pau Gasol as his second man (potentially a borderline HOF) and Lamar Odom as their 3rd best player (arguably Bynum) not exactly model players in terms of consistency.

                    Kobe is a winner and one of the best players ever. That "played with talent" is the excuse I hate when it comes to the black mamba

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                      The comparison was between TS% and eFG%. I explained why I prefer to use Danny's eFG% rather than his TS% a couple pages back. I'm sure you'll disagree, though.
                      Which is why we say some people use some stats over others because it supports their argument versus obtaining a true understanding.

                      The first time you said you prefer eFG% is when you compared Danny and Joe's statistics from last year. Joe's .521 versus Danny's .481 certainly supports your argument. You said "(EFG% > TS% imo but Joe still beats danny in both)"

                      I'm sure you were startled when you found out Danny's career eFG% is higher than Joe's but at least it was a smallest enough margin that you could stick with your story.

                      You followed that up with this:

                      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                      I see you prefer TS% over eFG%. I'd rather look at eFG%, though... Danny .503 Joe .494. Better, yeah, but not by much. Not nearly enough to back up your view that Danny's been the superior offensive player throughout his career considering all of his limitations.
                      You haven't really given any argument as to why you think eFG% somehow is more important or gives us more information. The only evidence as to why you'd choose one over the other is in the particular argument, if eFG% is superior, your entire argument holds more weight.

                      But see I can give you pretty sound reasoning as to why TS% clearly gives us more information, and why if you were to compare the two, you should conclude TS% is more important.

                      eFG% plain and simple leaves out an extremely important part of scoring the ball: trips to the free throw line. You can shoot poor from the field but if you get to the line on a regular basis you'll make up for your short comings shooting the ball. Though I do appreciate eFG% as it gives you insight on where a player is making his money, it does not give us enough information to be definitive either way.

                      The difference between eFG% and TS% is the difference between Dwyane Wade and Joe Johnson being either equals or Wade being far and above the player that Joe Johnson is.
                      Last edited by mattie; 08-28-2012, 09:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Every successful, talented player won championships with other talented players around him. Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, they all played with an abundance of talented players. You can't say that 5 rings is not Kobe maximizing his potential. Yes he played with Shaq, but there wasn't much else on that first three peat. The two recent titles were with Pau Gasol as his second man (potentially a borderline HOF) and Lamar Odom as their 3rd best player (arguably Bynum) not exactly model players in terms of consistency.

                        Kobe is a winner and one of the best players ever. That "played with talent" is the excuse I hate when it comes to the black mamba
                        Originally posted by shags View Post
                        You're seriously using Phil Jackson as an argument that coaches using intuition hurts their success. Maybe he'll let you borrow that 11th championship ring that he can't put on his finger.

                        I'm sorry, but Phil Jackson has earned the benefit of the doubt.
                        I'll do my best to explain quickly here but I refuse to dive much deeper into the topic as I don't won't to derail the thread into another Kobe thread.

                        Anywho- I value a player on their talents, abilities and how they perform. Not championships. I don't care if you have 12 championships. If you have 12 championships because you had great teammates you shouldn't somehow get more credit as a player.

                        I'm not using an "played with talent" excuse for Kobe. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Nothing wrong with playing with talent. As you said, everyone who has ever won played with talent. That's how it works. So yes, Kobe is a beneficiary of talent, as is every other great.

                        Finally, I do think some players did more with less than others. Again, this more a testament to that individual players talent than a knock on any other player. It's just a legitimate way to consider talent and help us understand who is in fact the best at what they do.

                        This is why I judge players on how they perform as individuals and not count championships, which is the most absurd way to judge a player ever.

                        Phil Jackson, one of the greatest coaches of all time, still probably blew his chance at another championship. Again, I'm not saying that means he sucks, or he's a failure or anything. But with that said, he probably did. Before you argue that point, please listen to that podcast, otherwise I have no intentions of discussing it with you.

                        Edit - Another example of what I'm talking about: LBJ taking the Cavaliers to the Finals in my opinion is FAR more impressive than anything Kobe has done his entire career. Yet until LBJ finally won a championship only then would people consider something that has been true since 2005: LBJ is a lot better player than Kobe Bryant. That is NOT a knock on Kobe. It's just life. Some people are better than others. No need for anyone to get their panties in a wad.

                        Edit 2 - Imagine if you took Kobe and LBJ's careers and swapped them. What would have happened? LBJ probably would of had 7 championships with Shaq before winning minimum 3 more with Pau Gasol. Kobe wouldn't of had won any. Had that happened Kobe's stock would be WAY down, and LBJ would be considered the greatest player ever. Is that fair? Just because one player had better circumstances than another?? Judge them on their performance, not their circumstances.
                        Last edited by mattie; 08-28-2012, 10:05 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I still can't believe people really think a one time all star is better than a six times all star only in PD I tell you
                          What are you talking about?


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

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            What are you talking about?
                            Joe Johnson 6 all star games and Danny 1 all star game.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Joe Johnson 6 all star games and Danny 1 all star game.
                              I almost laughed at this until I realized it was true!! Lol can't believe JJ has been to 6 AS games. Lol what a joke

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                                No doubt; the league is weak at the two guard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X