Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

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

  • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

    I don't think there was ever a more overrated NBA player than Allen Iverson.

    Not to say that he wasn't skilled, but he was horribly inefficient and got a lot of whistles due to contact that he initiated.

    There's a reason that AI is finishing his career overseas right now.

    Comment


    • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      I don't think there was ever a more overrated NBA player than Allen Iverson.

      Not to say that he wasn't skilled, but he was horribly inefficient and got a lot of whistles due to contact that he initiated.

      There's a reason that AI is finishing his career overseas right now.
      I couldn't agree more. There has never been a more overrated player in my eyes. To me he was about as good as a third string SG. Any SG can score 20+ ppg if he shot 30+ shots every game, in fact I would say most third string SG's could do it in a lot more efficient manner than Iverson.

      Comment


      • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

        Originally posted by Shade View Post

        There's a reason that AI is finishing his career overseas right now.
        Yeah. His skills diminished and he's an *******. Neither of which determine is value as a basketball player.

        Sorry, but no player has ever been capable of doing what iverson did, before or since. Pretending that any player could do what he did on shot attempts alone is sticking your head in the sand because you personally hate the guy. It isn't founded in reality. Sorry.

        Nobody outside the state lines of Indiana would take Reggie Miller over Allen Iverson at their best. That's not because Indiana is the holy land that values truth, justice, and team basketball. It's because Iverson is simply a better basketball player.

        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, 2004

        Comment


        • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

          Well, after reading through this thread, only one definitive conclusion can be made.

          There is no professional sports fanbase that overrates a player more than Indiana Pacer fans overrate Reggie Miller.

          And, IMO, it's ridiculous that Reggie wasn't at least on the list of 12 to be considered for the Hall of Fame.

          Comment


          • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

            Originally posted by shags View Post
            Well, after reading through this thread, only one definitive conclusion can be made.

            There is no professional sports fanbase that overrates a player more than Indiana Pacer fans overrate Reggie Miller.

            And, IMO, it's ridiculous that Reggie wasn't at least on the list of 12 to be considered for the Hall of Fame.
            i agree 100% i thought there was 0 chance he would be a first ballot HOF er. But he should have been a finalist.

            Comment


            • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

              Originally posted by shags View Post
              There is no professional sports fanbase that overrates a player more than some PD posters overrate Reggie Miller.
              Fixed for accuracy.

              I generally like your posts, but this kind of broad generalization bugs me. If you followed the thread it's pretty clear that the majority sentiment is not that Reggie is a surefire Hall of Famer, but that Reggie not making finalist is what surprises. This opinion btw seems to be shared by a lot of non Pacer fans.

              There definitely is a minority who look at Reggie through specially tinted glasses, but Kstat has been doing a good job refuting them throughout the thread (don't know where he finds the energy).

              Comment


              • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Fixed for accuracy.

                I generally like your posts, but this kind of broad generalization bugs me. If you followed the thread it's pretty clear that the majority sentiment is not that Reggie is a surefire Hall of Famer, but that Reggie not making finalist is what surprises. This opinion btw seems to be shared by a lot of non Pacer fans.

                There definitely is a minority who look at Reggie through specially tinted glasses, but Kstat has been doing a good job refuting them throughout the thread (don't know where he finds the energy).
                Very fair. Shouldn't have generalized.

                Comment


                • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                  Reggie got shafted. I can't believe Rodman and Mullin made it, but he didn't.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                    I don't begrude Rodman finally making it to the final cut. But yes, Reggie should have been there too.
                    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                    Comment


                    • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                      Of those nine involved in this year's selection, Colangelo said four had covered basketball for a combined 120 years; two were Hall of Famers; two were coaches and one is a current NBA executive.

                      http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...ted-hall_N.htm

                      Obviously the voters were:

                      NBA executive - Pat Riley
                      HOFers - Micheal Jordan, Patrick Ewing
                      Coaches - Stan Van Gundy, Mike D'Antoni

                      Comment


                      • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                        Why Reggie Miller is a Hall of Famer

                        I shouldn’t have to make an argument for why Reggie Miller is a Hall of Famer. His entrance into the club of 300-plus players, coaches, executives and other basketball contributors should be automatic. What I can do here is cite why Miller should’ve been a candidate as a first-time nominee. Even though I don’t get why Maurice Cheeks and Jamaal Wilkes were deemed more Hall-worthy than Miller, they played before my time. I can’t make a strong case for why they shouldn’t be in the Hall without having seen them play season after season. But I watched Miller for most of his career. Think about the impact he had on the NBA.

                        Miller holds the ninth-best free throw percentage ever at 88.77 percent. He had made more three-point shots than anyone else in the NBA since the three-point line was instituted for the 1979-80 season until Ray Allen recently passed him. Miller averaged at least 18 points for 12 consecutive seasons, including 20 points or more six times.

                        Of the seven postseasons in which Miller played 10 or more games, he put up at least 19.9 points per game five times. His 2,972 postseason points ranks 19th all-time; he averaged 20.6 points per game in 144 playoff contests. But there is a more important element to Miller’s Hall candidacy than just stats.

                        He was undoubtedly one of the best players of his generation, especially in the postseason. He was a leader. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t win an NBA title — he played in the Jordan era. Too many great players had their championship hopes spiked by MJ to hold it against them — Ewing, Stockton, Malone, Miller, Barkley, Gary Payton until he clung onto Miami’s 2005-06 squad.

                        Miller was the leading scorer on nine playoff teams. He was The Man on a team that made five Eastern Conference Finals and one NBA Finals, and he made another Conference Finals as a role player. (In the three Conference Finals Game 7s in which he played, Miller went 7/17 – 25 points, 5/13 – 12 points, 7/13 – 22 points.)

                        If you think of the NBA in the ’90s, Miller’s accomplishments invariably come up early in that thought process. You think of 25 fourth quarter points against the Knicks at Madison Square Garden in ’94. There were the eight points in 18 seconds against the Knicks at the Garden in ’95. There’s his oft-forgtten game-winning three vs. the Bulls in ’98.

                        Draw a list of the NBA’s most clutch performers in the ’90s, and Miller is in play for the second spot after Jordan. I’m being truly objective on this final point. Were there ten players in the ’90s who had a greater impact on their team and the league than Miller? Here are the guys I can think of who would be placed ahead of Miller: Jordan, Pippen, Stockton, Malone, Olajuwan, Robinson, Payton, Barkley, Ewing, Shaq…those are ten. And you can make the argument that Miller had more of a positive impact on his team and the league than Ewing or Shaq, at least until Shaq’s career was resuscitated by Phil Jackson in 1999.

                        Miller was one of the game’s great players for a decade, and for that he should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer
                        By Kyle Stack good writer of of LA

                        http://kylestack.com/

                        Comment


                        • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post

                          There definitely is a minority who look at Reggie through specially tinted glasses, but Kstat has been doing a good job refuting them throughout the thread (don't know where he finds the energy).
                          I had to deal with a family situation that day and was blowing off steam. I realize I was beating a pinata with a broad axe, lighting it on fire and then blowing it up with sticks of dynamite.

                          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, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            He went from the 97th best regular season scorer in NBA history to the 43rd best playoff scorer. Playing more minutes was a big part. His numbers went up in the playoffs, but it's not as if he came out of a phone booth with tights and a cape and set the league on fire.

                            I'm not saying Reggie was a selfish guy, or didn't value winning. But his unselfishnes is way overblown. The best I can say about him on that issue is he was always willing to rest more often during the regular season to be ready for the playoffs. His style of play didn't change a ton.
                            Are you serious about this comment? He averaged 29.5 ppg in the playoffs all the way until the finals year in 2001. I'm almost 90 percent sure of that stat.

                            I can remember 90s playoffs games and Reggie Miller scoring 30 a night and dominating every team he played. Other teams turned it up a notch, but Reggie outshined them all. I wish someone could find me one player that went from a 20 ppg scorer in their prime, who increased their offensive output by 50 percent when the big lights came on. He did this for like 5 years. Reggie was already past his prime, though not by far, by the time he made it to the Finals.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                              Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                              Are you serious about this comment? He averaged 29.5 ppg in the playoffs all the way until the finals year in 2001. I'm almost 90 percent sure of that stat.
                              ...as sure as you are that Reggie went to the finals in 2001?

                              For the record, you were equally wrong on both accounts. Reggie's playoff scoring average prior to 2001 was 23.5 ppg. That would have placed him 25th all time, although you have to take that into context, since most great players had their scoring averages skewed past their primes.

                              I can remember 90s playoffs games and Reggie Miller scoring 30 a night and dominating every team he played. Other teams turned it up a notch, but Reggie outshined them all. I wish someone could find me one player that went from a 20 ppg scorer in their prime, who increased their offensive output by 50 percent when the big lights came on. He did this for like 5 years. Reggie was already past his prime, though not by far, by the time he made it to the Finals.
                              ...the worst part about the past is it often gets distorted. A small fish becomes a big fish, and a big fish becomes a 3,000 pound trout.

                              Reggie averaged over 30ppg twice in 15 postseason trips, and both of those came in years where the Pacers were knocked out in the first round. Both Reggie's playoff %FG and %3-point are lower than his regular season shooting percentages. That's not at all out of the ordinary for a #1 scorer, given the defensive nature of postseason play, but it also doesn't separate him from the rest of the pack.

                              Reggie's offensive output did not increase %50 in the playoffs. it went up %13. What you remember and what actually happened are two different things.

                              For the record, Reggie Miller scored 30+ points 27 times in 144 playoff games.

                              Reggie topped 30+ points 15 times in 78 games during the entire decade of the 90's.

                              Of course, on the flipside that means 12 of Reggie's 30+ point games came after his 34th birthday.

                              By comparison, Hakeem Olajuwon only scored 30+ 5 times after he turned 34. Larry Bird only did it once.

                              Michael Jordan, the top playoff scorer of all time, accomplished it 14 times. The scary thing is he only played in the playoffs once after the age of 34.

                              I assume Kareem holds the NBA record for this unofficial mark, as he still had 126 playoff games, four championships and a finals MVP ahead of him after he turned 34. Unfortunately, since individual playoff game logs are not to my knowledge available prior to the 90's, I won't know for sure.

                              Upon further analysis, Reggie finished among the top 5 playoff scorers three times in 15 postseason trips, from 1990 to 2005. His best finish was in 1993, when he came in 2nd.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 02-21-2011, 05:48 AM.

                              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, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                                Kstat I stand corrected. We went to the Finals in 2000. I misremembered it. He did average 23.5 ppg until his final three years. I should not have trusted my childhood memory. I was off by 6 PPG in my memory. Still he did have teams game planning for him and he increased his PPG by 20 percent. Show me a list of players who increased their PPG by 20 percent in the playoffs for like a decade and got over 23 ppg and the list must be VERY thin, espescially in the 90s.

                                Reggie really was that good. We can argue facts and what ifs all day, but the fact that Reggie Miller isn't a first ballot hall of famer is a shame. Reggie could have went ring chasing. He could have signed with a contender for cheap and won a few maybe. But here we are in hypotheticals.

                                To me arguing Reggie Miller isn't a first ballot hall of famer because because for some wild reason you deemed him "one dimensional" is like saying Peyton Manning won't be a first ballot hall of famer because he isn't a mobile quarterback at all.

                                All I'm really arguing is the system is broke and it should be fixed. Reggie Miller is a top 10 player from the 90s IMO, even if he is 10th. That is a decade. That warrants a first ballot induction itself in an NBA hall of fame. The fact that he didn't even make it to the final ballot was the slap in the face heard round the world and hopefully the beginning of the end to a flawed system.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X