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

Where do you rate Kobe all time?

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

  • #91
    Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I'm not for sure. He did have Elgin Baylor for 3 of his 5 Laker years and Jerry West for all 5 of them.
    Baylor was over the hill and nothing like the player he once was. West was still great and many people think that one of those teams was the best of all time.... ...

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

      I've always heard that Russell was willing to give up personal stats to win, and I've always taken that to mean that he didn't score as much as he could have, but just looking over his career numbers and something just jumps out at me like a sore thumb.

      Russell never shot better than 50% in any season. His personal high was 46.7%.
      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...russebi01.html
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I agree. Championships matter far more in basketball than football or baseball when it comes to ranking all-time greats. In football you can only play one side of the field and in baseball you can only bat 4 or 5 times. But in basketball you have the opportunity to dominate both ends of the court.

        Winning only two championships in an era where there were like 14 teams just isn't enough to be labeled a top 3 all time player, IMO. I don't see how anyone could put him over Jordan when Jordan won 6 championships in an era where there were far more teams, not to mention a far better talent pool of athletes. There was literally nothing else that Jordan could have accomplished in his career. The man did it all. With Wilt OTOH, there will always be a "yeah, but....." Wilt is not top 3.

        Now I obviously never saw Wilt play, but I'm going to presume that the majority of the people commenting here didn't either. He last played in 1973, so you'd have to be in your early 50's to have any memory of him. You'd have to be closer to 60 to have any clear memory of him during the prime of his career.
        I saw him as a rookie in 1956, I think. I saw Wilt through his entire career. He didn't win many championships because Russell had all of the talent on his team. When Wilt had talent with him like Hal Greer and Jerry West, those teams are considered two of the best of all time. Jordan didn't win until Pippin and others joined him. Wilt never had a cast like that. Wilt routinely led the league in rebounding and would have led in blocked shots if that stat had been kept. He could score 50 points per game or lead the league in assists if that is what his team needed from him..... I would start any all time team with Wilt and have no worry that I was right. ...

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          It took Russell and seven other HoF'ers to beat Wilt's one-man teams in Philly and SF.
          What about all of the other teams that beat Wilt when he was a Warrior? It's not like he was making it to the Finals every year, only to lose to the loaded Celtics teams. He only played the Celtics once in his six year tenure as a Warrior, meaning that it was the other teams in the West who were usually knocking Wilt out in the playoffs. So clearly it didn't take 7 Celtics HOFers to knock Wilt out. Most of the time it took much less. Were the other teams in the West really that much better than the Warriors? Or is it possible that one player shooting the ball 34 times a game is not exactly the best formula for winning?

          If one is going to rank Wilt as high as 1-3, then they inevitably have to make excuses for his glaring lack of postseason success. There's no excuses needed for Jordan. The man literally accomplished every single thing an athlete could accomplish. Are championships the only important factor? Of course not. But we're talking about basketball, a sport where one player can dominate the game on both ends. If we're talking all-time greats, then I'm going to give the edge to the player with 6 rings over the one with 2, especially when the one with 6 played in a much deeper era against far better athletes.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

            I'm going to use a Bill Simmons argument here for Wilt.

            One more note on this: we get carried away with basketball statistics nowadays, as evidenced by the new book that rated Allen Iverson as the 90th best player in the league during his MVP season. Why make it so complicated? Just add up the point, rebound and assist averages for franchise guys during the playoffs: If the number tops 42, you're probably talking about a pantheon guy. You could even call it the 42 Club, just as exclusive as the Five-Timer Club on SNL, only without the NBA equivalent of Elliott Gould.



            Since it's my idea, I only allowed guys who played 13 or more playoff games in one postseason to be eligible, since that's a legitimate sampling (more than a month of basketball at the highest level). Here's what the 42 Club looks like since the ABA/NBA merger in 1976:

            Michael Jordan (six times) -- 49.4 ('89); 50.7 ('90); 45.9 ('91); 46.5 ('92); 47.8 ('93); 43.8 ('97)
            Shaquille O'Neal (four times) -- 43.6 ('98); 49.2 ('00); 49.0 ('01); 43.9 ('02)
            Larry Bird (four times) -- 42.0 ('81); 44.4 ('84); 43.4 ('86); 44.2 ('87)
            Moses Malone (twice) -- 43.0 ('81), 43.3 ('83)
            Magic Johnson (twice) -- 43.8 ('86), 42.5 ('91)
            Karl Malone (twice) -- 43.0 ('92), 42.9 ('94)
            Hakeem Olajuwon (twice) -- 44.2 ('94), 47.8 ('95)
            Tim Duncan (twice) -- 42.7 ('01), 45.4 ('03)
            Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- 47.1 ('80)
            Charles Barkley -- 44.5 ('93)
            Kobe Bryant -- 42.8 ('01)
            Allen Iverson -- 43.7 ('01)
            Kevin Garnett -- 44.0 ('04)
            LeBron James -- 44.7 ('06)
            Dirk Nowitzki -- 45.1 ('06, ongoing)
            http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/060602

            Wilt had a season where he scored 62. 28ppg 30rpg 3apg.
            Russell's best was 54. 19ppg 30rpg 5apg

            Those are just ridiculous numbers, and not sure why they get diluted just because he wasn't good enough to overcome the rest of his teammates. If he choked during pressure situations, then that would change the ballgame, but looks like Wilt more than carried expectations.

            EDIT: And it's crazy to see these guys averaging 48mins per game some seasons (playoffs). Wilt actually averaged 48.5mins in 67-68.
            EDIT2: Wilt belongs in that 42pt club 11 times, out of 13. 10 of 13 for Russell.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-07-2012, 05:47 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

              Originally posted by Eddie Gill View Post
              Controversial opinion alert: Wilt Chamberlain is overrated. In interest of full-disclosure, I never saw the man play - way before my time (like, I presume many others in this thread). I would merely suggest that had he played in an era with Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, even a guy like Ewing, many of these All-Time Greatest lists might look very different. He was a 7'2 giant playing in an era when the average height of a starting center was 6'7. Also, any list with Russell over Wilt is nonsensical. I understand the argument that Russell played on vastly superior teams, but 9 championships to 2 pretty much speaks for itself.

              Maybe one of the old-timers on here can set me straight, because I just don't get Wilt being a top 5 player all time.

              Wilt the Stilt was JUST AWESOME. He was so unbelieveably athletic, agile, and mobile. The greatest big man EVER!! He could be said the greatest BB player ever.

              The problem I have with this thread is that few posters on this board have seen players who played in the 50's 60's, or 70's. If you never saw them play, you are at a great disadvantage ranking players.

              Wilt was THE player in his time! He was head and shoulders above the rest. Chamberlain didn't have the quality of players surrounding him like Russell did, thus he didn't win Championships, but what he did do was make his team championship caliber contenders by himself. Most don't remember or know Wilt's 1st team was the Phiadelphia Warriors. Quick name another player on that team without goggling the answer. I watched many a game of Wilt's, and that's why I can say how GREAT he was!

              How many are aware after the NBA that Wilt played volleyball? He was an ATHLETE personified!

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                What about all of the other teams that beat Wilt when he was a Warrior? It's not like he was making it to the Finals every year, only to lose to the loaded Celtics teams. He only played the Celtics once in his six year tenure as a Warrior, meaning that it was the other teams in the West who were usually knocking Wilt out in the playoffs. So clearly it didn't take 7 Celtics HOFers to knock Wilt out. Most of the time it took much less. Were the other teams in the West really that much better than the Warriors? Or is it possible that one player shooting the ball 34 times a game is not exactly the best formula for winning?

                If one is going to rank Wilt as high as 1-3, then they inevitably have to make excuses for his glaring lack of postseason success. There's no excuses needed for Jordan. The man literally accomplished every single thing an athlete could accomplish. Are championships the only important factor? Of course not. But we're talking about basketball, a sport where one player can dominate the game on both ends. If we're talking all-time greats, then I'm going to give the edge to the player with 6 rings over the one with 2, especially when the one with 6 played in a much deeper era against far better athletes.
                If Jordan had played against Wilt, he would have been reduced to a jump shooter. Wilt would not have let him score close to the basket. Jordan was a great leaper but so was Wilt and he was about 8 to 9 inches taller with longer arms...... Read what Russell had to say about Wilt. He begged his teammate not to make him angry because he had to try and guard him and he said Wilt could jump out of the arena...... Wilt got the job done in the playoffs when he had good teammates. Russell played with most all hall of famers. Wilt did not. Wilt dominated every team including the Celtics but his teammates were really wanting..... Put Wilt playing with Oscar Robertson and you would have had multiple championships right in Russells face. Oscar was great but he didn't do much in the playoffs until he joined Kareem and won a title as an old man. Put Wilt with Hal Greer and you have one of the great teams of all time. Put him with Jerry West and perhaps you have the greatest single year team and both Wilt and West were past their best days when that happened...... The NBA was stronger in those days because there were so few teams.... I also saw Wilt block a sky hook..... ...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  Wilt the Stilt was JUST AWESOME. He was so unbelieveably athletic, agile, and mobile. The greatest big man EVER!! He could be said the greatest BB player ever.

                  The problem I have with this thread is that few posters on this board have seen players who played in the 50's 60's, or 70's. If you never saw them play, you are at a great disadvantage ranking players.

                  Wilt was THE player in his time! He was head and shoulders above the rest. Chamberlain didn't have the quality of players surrounding him like Russell did, thus he didn't win Championships, but what he did do was make his team championship caliber contenders by himself. Most don't remember or know Wilt's 1st team was the Phiadelphia Warriors. Quick name another player on that team without goggling the answer. I watched many a game of Wilt's, and that's why I can say how GREAT he was!

                  How many are aware after the NBA that Wilt played volleyball? He was an ATHLETE personified!
                  I think Guy Rogers and Paul Arizan were on those teams..... ...

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    If Jordan had played against Wilt, he would have been reduced to a jump shooter. Wilt would not have let him score close to the basket. Jordan was a great leaper but so was Wilt and he was about 8 to 9 inches taller with longer arms...... Read what Russell had to say about Wilt. He begged his teammate not to make him angry because he had to try and guard him and he said Wilt could jump out of the arena...... Wilt got the job done in the playoffs when he had good teammates. Russell played with most all hall of famers. Wilt did not. Wilt dominated every team including the Celtics but his teammates were really wanting..... Put Wilt playing with Oscar Robertson and you would have had multiple championships right in Russells face. Oscar was great but he didn't do much in the playoffs until he joined Kareem and won a title as an old man. Put Wilt with Hal Greer and you have one of the great teams of all time. Put him with Jerry West and perhaps you have the greatest single year team and both Wilt and West were past their best days when that happened...... The NBA was stronger in those days because there were so few teams.... I also saw Wilt block a sky hook..... ...

                    I appreciate what you have to say on this because you saw him play and I didn't. You've offered some interesting insight. Thanks.

                    And let me clarify that I'm not debating his all-time great status, because clearly he is one of the best ever. I was just debating his top 3 status and ChiJ having him ranked over 45.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I appreciate what you have to say on this because you saw him play and I didn't. You've offered some interesting insight. Thanks.

                      And let me clarify that I'm not debating his all-time great status, because clearly he is one of the best ever. I was just debating his top 3 status and ChiJ having him ranked over 45.
                      The first time I saw Wilt play (I was about 9 years old at the time), he played for the Harlem Globetrotters because he had to wait a year to turn pro. He was awesome. He did not clowning but he was making thunderous dunks and leading fast breaks. He was clearly the best athlete on that team..... ...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        Wilt the Stilt was JUST AWESOME. He was so unbelieveably athletic, agile, and mobile. The greatest big man EVER!! He could be said the greatest BB player ever.

                        The problem I have with this thread is that few posters on this board have seen players who played in the 50's 60's, or 70's. If you never saw them play, you are at a great disadvantage ranking players.

                        Wilt was THE player in his time! He was head and shoulders above the rest. Chamberlain didn't have the quality of players surrounding him like Russell did, thus he didn't win Championships, but what he did do was make his team championship caliber contenders by himself. Most don't remember or know Wilt's 1st team was the Phiadelphia Warriors. Quick name another player on that team without goggling the answer. I watched many a game of Wilt's, and that's why I can say how GREAT he was!

                        How many are aware after the NBA that Wilt played volleyball? He was an ATHLETE personified!
                        Wilt hated be called "the stilt". His favorite nickname was "The Big Dipper". We are also forgetting about his most impressive athletic achievement, Wilt's 20,000...... ...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          What about all of the other teams that beat Wilt when he was a Warrior? It's not like he was making it to the Finals every year, only to lose to the loaded Celtics teams. He only played the Celtics once in his six year tenure as a Warrior, meaning that it was the other teams in the West who were usually knocking Wilt out in the playoffs. So clearly it didn't take 7 Celtics HOFers to knock Wilt out. Most of the time it took much less. Were the other teams in the West really that much better than the Warriors? Or is it possible that one player shooting the ball 34 times a game is not exactly the best formula for winning?

                          If one is going to rank Wilt as high as 1-3, then they inevitably have to make excuses for his glaring lack of postseason success. There's no excuses needed for Jordan. The man literally accomplished every single thing an athlete could accomplish. Are championships the only important factor? Of course not. But we're talking about basketball, a sport where one player can dominate the game on both ends. If we're talking all-time greats, then I'm going to give the edge to the player with 6 rings over the one with 2, especially when the one with 6 played in a much deeper era against far better athletes.

                          I doubt you were even born when Wilt laced up his sneakers on a NBA BB court, yet you know how great Wilt was! Or that Philly gave Wilt a blank contract to fill in his own salary. Which was 1 mil. The 1st million dollar pro athlete.

                          You talking about Wilt would be like me talking about Dan Patch. Before my time, just a name I've heard others talk about. I CAN talk about Wilt, b/c I saw him play from the beginning of his career to his retirement. Your wrong about how great Wilt was! Again, Wilt never had the players surrounding him Russell had, so his early teams weren't that good. But that doesn't change how great he was.

                          P/s Ted Williams was one of the "all time great baseball players", AND he NEVER won a World Series. I don't believe the Bosox ever won the American league pennant while he played for them. Doesn't mean he wasn't great then nor does it mean he wouldn't be great today.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Or is it possible that one player shooting the ball 34 times a game is not exactly the best formula for winning?
                            When one shoots 55% from the field - I don't see how that could be a negative.

                            And there were seasons when he was well over 60%. His last season in the league he shot 73%. And led the league in rebounding. He decided one year to lead the league in assists. He did. The guy was simply incredible.

                            Now, about his 20,000+ ............... http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/138698

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              I doubt you were even born when Wilt laced up his sneakers on a NBA BB court, yet you know how great Wilt was! Or that Philly gave Wilt a blank contract to fill in his own salary. Which was 1 mil. The 1st million dollar pro athlete.

                              You talking about Wilt would be like me talking about Dan Patch. Before my time, just a name I've heard others talk about. I CAN talk about Wilt, b/c I saw him play from the beginning of his career to his retirement. Your wrong about how great Wilt was! Again, Wilt never had the players surrounding him Russell had, so his early teams weren't that good. But that doesn't change how great he was.
                              .
                              I wasn't alive on December 7, 1941, but I know that Pearl Harbor was bombed 71 years ago today. Since when is it a requirement that one has to have seen a player play in person before they can put them on something as dubious and trivial as an "all-time list" on a freaking internet message board? I bet like 80% of the people here never watched Wilt play either.

                              Clearly someone who watched Wilt is going to know more about him than someone like me who wasn't alive at the time, which is why I thanked Olblu. But the problem here is that most people on this forum never saw him play either. Are you saying that everyone who wasn't alive when Wilt played should be forbidden from commenting on him, or are you only singling me out because you didn't like what I had to say?
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-07-2012, 06:51 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I wasn't alive on December 7, 1941, but I know that Pearl Harbor was bombed 71 years ago today. Since when is it a requirement that one has to have seen a player play in person before they can put them on something as dubious and trivial as an "all-time list"? I bet like 80% of the people here never watched Wilt play either.

                                Clearly someone who watched Wilt is going to know more about him than someone like me who wasn't alive at the time, which is why I thanked Olblu. But the problem here is that most people on this forum never saw him play either. Are you saying that everyone who wasn't alive when Wilt played should be forbidden from commenting on him, or are you only singling me out because you didn't like what I had to say?

                                I'm not singling you out. I'm just saying you or others who never saw Wilt play can't truly evaluate his greatness. You were never blessed to see his Greatness 1st hand. That winning Championships isn't a criteria that GREATNESS should be based upon. Some seem to feel it is. I could name many great old time baseball players who never won a World Series that are still ALLTIME GREAT players.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X