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

Redoing the top 50 players of all time

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

  • #16
    ^No Dwyane Wade?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      ^No Dwyane Wade?!?!?!?!?!?!?
      Well crap, I had him on there and somehow he got cut. Let me look again.

      Edit: Updated, sadly Tiny Archibald now is off.


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

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Okay here are my 50, I'm not happy about it btw. There were players cut that I never had any intention of cutting and I hate putting Curry & Harden in over others but their on court production along with winning pretty much dictated it.

        Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
        Charles Barkley
        Rick Barry
        Elgin Baylor
        Kobe Bryant
        Larry Bird
        Wilt Chamberlain
        Bob Cousy
        Dave Cowens
        Steph Curry
        Clyde Drexler
        Tim Duncan
        Kevin Durant
        Julius Erving
        Patrick Ewing
        Walt Frazier
        Kevin Garnett
        George Gervin
        John Havlicek
        James Harden
        Elvin Hayes
        LeBron James
        Magic Johnson
        Michael Jordan
        Jason Kidd
        Jerry Lucas
        Karl Malone
        Moses Malone
        Kevin McHale
        George Mikan
        Dikembe Motumbo
        Steve Nash
        Dirk Nowitzki
        Hakeem Olajuwon
        Shaquille O'Neal
        Chris Paul
        Bob Pettit
        Scottie Pippen
        Oscar Robertson
        David Robinson
        Bill Russell
        John Stockton
        Isiah Thomas
        Nate Thurmond
        Wes Unseld
        Dwayne Wade
        Ben Wallace
        Bill Walton
        Jerry West
        Russell Westbrook





        Patrick Ewing, George Gervin, Russell Westbrook, Jerry Lucas, Dikembe Mutombo, Ben Wallace over Kawhi Leonard, Tony Parker, Pau Gasol, Giannis Antekoumpo, and Paul Pierce? Quarantine may keep us from going to games, but apparently cannot keep me safe from your nonsensical ramblings and sub-par basketball analysis.
        Last edited by Diamond Dave; 05-06-2020, 06:34 PM.
        House Name: Pacers

        House Sigil:



        House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

        Comment


        • #19
          I love/hate Ben Wallace... Top 50 all-time is a reach like no other to me. His team wasn't an all-time great team, and there are real cases to be made that he wasn't the best or second best player on those teams.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ichi View Post
            I love/hate Ben Wallace... Top 50 all-time is a reach like no other to me. His team wasn't an all-time great team, and there are real cases to be made that he wasn't the best or second best player on those teams.
            Ben to me is going to be the gauge as to whether or not we are going to say that scoring is the only thing that truly matters. I mean we have players on the list that scored only but did not play a lick of defense or rebound or pass very well (George Gervin certainly played no defense, wasn't a good rebounder and at best was a decent passer but he could score). So to me Wallace was the key to those Detroit teams. Obviously the strength of that team was that there was no established traditional superstar, but I contend that Ben Wallace was a star player without being able to score.

            4 time all star, 4 time defensive player of the year, 3 time all nba 2nd team, 2 time all NBA 3rd team. Led league in rebounds, blocks twice.

            Now if we want to discount a player because he didn't score I'll disagree but I'll do it. As long as we go back through that list and take out players who were sub par defenders. If that is the case Nash, Curry, Harden & Gervin are out the door right away.


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

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Peck View Post

              Ben to me is going to be the gauge as to whether or not we are going to say that scoring is the only thing that truly matters. I mean we have players on the list that scored only but did not play a lick of defense or rebound or pass very well (George Gervin certainly played no defense, wasn't a good rebounder and at best was a decent passer but he could score). So to me Wallace was the key to those Detroit teams. Obviously the strength of that team was that there was no established traditional superstar, but I contend that Ben Wallace was a star player without being able to score.

              4 time all star, 4 time defensive player of the year, 3 time all nba 2nd team, 2 time all NBA 3rd team. Led league in rebounds, blocks twice.

              Now if we want to discount a player because he didn't score I'll disagree but I'll do it. As long as we go back through that list and take out players who were sub par defenders. If that is the case Nash, Curry, Harden & Gervin are out the door right away.
              The Detroit team was the ultimate example where the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. It was a perfectly put together team with incredible chemistry, but I don’t think any of those guys have the same success without each other - except maybe Billups who turned Denver into a deep playoff team that first year. I always felt the two Wallaces, Rip, and Billups were pretty equal in importance.

              For me the X factor on that team was the Sheed acquisition. Keep in mind that they were swept out of the playoffs by NJ the year before Sheed. Then the Pacers were 3-0 against them in the 03-04 regular season before they got Sheed. There’s never been a mid-season acquisition impact a team as much as Sheed, aside from maybe Drexler with Houston. He gave them their swagger and identity. JO always ate them alive before Sheed - it was Sheed who totally changed how they played JO. They don’t beat the Pacers in 04 or the Heat in 05 without Sheed. Certainly no 04 title without him.

              Just like Manu, I don’t think Wallace is anywhere even remotely close to a top 50 all time player status. Same with Deke.

              Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-07-2020, 07:33 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Pau Gasol probably deserves some mention here, especially if we're seeing guys like Manu, Deke, and Wallace thrown in (who, IMHO, aren't even close to being fringe guys). I would easily take Gasol over those guys. Gasol had an incredible career and was a monster on two championsihp runs. I wouldn't say Gasol is automatic by any means, but he's certainly worthy of a fringe mention. I'm a bit biased though because those Kobe/Gasol championship Lakers teams are my favorite non-Pacer teams ever. Kobe was always my favorite non-Pacer player and I just loved the chemistry of that team after the Gasol addition. Gasol was such a fun player to watch. Looking forward to seeing his number hanging in the STAPLES rafters.

                Also, I think Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are pretty much locks now that I think about it. Both had incredibly long productive careers and were lights out in their prime. Pierce won a Finals MVP and is pretty close to being a top 5 or so Celtic of all time. Ray Allen is the all time leader in threes and won two titles. Even though he was a reserve in Miami, he obviously saved that 2013 series.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-08-2020, 09:16 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  You can't simply count rings and stats... Manu and Allen are Hall of Famers, but what did Ray do as the leader of his team? Very little. He needed 3-4 other Hall of Famers to win a ring as the 3rd or 4th option. Manu had Parker and Duncan. And I do believe someone like Manu would put up 25ppg if his team needed it, but same can be said for Reggie. Many players in history played within a team concept and set their own individual "stats" aside for the benefit of the team. Guys like Manu and Reggie are two of such players who could have put up Dominique Wilkins-esque offensive numbers if needed, but they were more focused on wins.

                  For many greats, I always ask myself what those players did as THE MAN on their teams and considering the talent around them. Then I look at Reggie seeing 5 ECF appearances in 7 years, 3 game 7 losses, 1 Finals appearance, and 1 year he was hurt in the playoffs costing them against Atlanta... with no other multi-year all-star on his roster and wonder how the F anyone can place some of these players above him, while also considering he played within a slow, half-court Eastern Conference system never averaging more than 15.7fga/gm.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by croz24 View Post

                    For many greats, I always ask myself what those players did as THE MAN on their teams and considering the talent around them. Then I look at Reggie seeing 5 ECF appearances in 7 years, 3 game 7 losses, 1 Finals appearance, and 1 year he was hurt in the playoffs costing them against Atlanta... with no other multi-year all-star on his roster and wonder how the F anyone can place some of these players above him, while also considering he played within a slow, half-court Eastern Conference system never averaging more than 15.7fga/gm.

                    This is a great point. There were only two times in that stretch where Reggie had a legit consistent number two scorer alongside him: Smits in 1995 and Rose in 2000. Smits was a monster in 1995 and outplayed Ewing in the playoffs (before of course having to go up against Shaq). Unfortunately, Smits began to decline after that season because of injuries. Rose was a stud in 2000, so it's always amazed me that he's not more appreciated on this forum. His emergence into a legit number two scorer was a major factor in that team finally getting over the hump into The Finals.

                    You also look at some of the teams Reggie's Pacers lost to: the intense 1994 Knicks in Game 7, the 1995 Shaq/Penny Magic in Game 7, the 1998 Jordan Bulls in Game 7, and the 2000 Shaq/Kobe Lakers in a 6 game series. Those were all monster teams with some of the best players in league history. Only one time did prime Reggie's Pacers severely underachive in a playoff series - the disastrous 1999 loss to the Knicks.

                    When it's framed that way, you can almost say Reggie's career is underrated. His teams had consistent deep playoff success and lost to some monster teams.

                    I think Allen deserves it not just because of rings, but also because of big numbers - though as you mention, the lack of playoff success before Boston hurts.

                    Manu - just nowhere close to top 50 all time player status IMHO. He was a great winner, but there's just not enough there for him to crack into the Elite top 50.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Okay here are my 50, I'm not happy about it btw. There were players cut that I never had any intention of cutting and I hate putting Curry & Harden in over others but their on court production along with winning pretty much dictated it.

                      Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
                      Charles Barkley
                      Rick Barry
                      Elgin Baylor
                      Kobe Bryant
                      Larry Bird
                      Wilt Chamberlain
                      Bob Cousy
                      Dave Cowens
                      Steph Curry
                      Clyde Drexler
                      Tim Duncan
                      Kevin Durant
                      Julius Erving
                      Patrick Ewing
                      Walt Frazier
                      Kevin Garnett
                      George Gervin
                      John Havlicek
                      James Harden
                      Elvin Hayes
                      LeBron James
                      Magic Johnson
                      Michael Jordan
                      Jason Kidd
                      Jerry Lucas
                      Karl Malone
                      Moses Malone
                      Kevin McHale
                      George Mikan
                      Dikembe Motumbo
                      Steve Nash
                      Dirk Nowitzki
                      Hakeem Olajuwon
                      Shaquille O'Neal
                      Chris Paul
                      Bob Pettit
                      Scottie Pippen
                      Oscar Robertson
                      David Robinson
                      Bill Russell
                      John Stockton
                      Isiah Thomas
                      Nate Thurmond
                      Wes Unseld
                      Dwayne Wade
                      Ben Wallace
                      Bill Walton
                      Jerry West
                      Russell Westbrook





                      I would swap Ben Wallace for Dwight Howard

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Manu - just nowhere close to top 50 all time player status IMHO. He was a great winner, but there's just not enough there for him to crack into the Elite top 50.
                        Here a distinction must be made. I agree about Manu not being (not even close) of the greatest 50 NBA players of all-time. However, when you add his accolades from Euro-basket and especially leading Argentina to historical 2004 Olympic gold medal then it becomes definitely debatable.

                        Manu Ginobili, Drazen Petrovic and Arvydas Sabonis are the 3 foremost players who should be included in all-time Top50 basketball players, but not Top50 NBA players.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Peck View Post

                          Ben to me is going to be the gauge as to whether or not we are going to say that scoring is the only thing that truly matters. I mean we have players on the list that scored only but did not play a lick of defense or rebound or pass very well (George Gervin certainly played no defense, wasn't a good rebounder and at best was a decent passer but he could score). So to me Wallace was the key to those Detroit teams. Obviously the strength of that team was that there was no established traditional superstar, but I contend that Ben Wallace was a star player without being able to score.

                          4 time all star, 4 time defensive player of the year, 3 time all nba 2nd team, 2 time all NBA 3rd team. Led league in rebounds, blocks twice.

                          Now if we want to discount a player because he didn't score I'll disagree but I'll do it. As long as we go back through that list and take out players who were sub par defenders. If that is the case Nash, Curry, Harden & Gervin are out the door right away.
                          You're making up some narrative here. I would argue Rasheed was more important for that team, and man could do it all against top tier forwards in that time, including defend.

                          Edit: this looks a bit more harsh than I meant. I just mean to say that not having Ben Wallace doesn't mean there isn't value placed in defense. Offense is more important in basketball, but if a guy can just get buckets, he's not being considered in the top 50 either.
                          Last edited by Ichi; 05-11-2020, 05:32 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ichi View Post

                            You're making up some narrative here. I would argue Rasheed was more important for that team, and man could do it all against top tier forwards in that time, including defend.

                            Edit: this looks a bit more harsh than I meant. I just mean to say that not having Ben Wallace doesn't mean there isn't value placed in defense. Offense is more important in basketball, but if a guy can just get buckets, he's not being considered in the top 50 either.

                            I agree - the reason Ben Wallace shouldn't be there is because he simply is nowhere even remotely close to being a Top 50 all time player. He's not even remotely close to being a fringe player, IMHO.

                            I don't think he was any more important than Sheed, Rip, or Billups. That team was the perfect example of a whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

                            I agree that Sheed was more important than Ben. They were a very good team before Sheed, but I never felt they were super intimidating. NJ swept them out of the 2003 playoffs. The Pacers were 3-0 against them in 03-04 before they got Sheed and were clearly the better team with the better record. Like I said, JO always feasted on them before Sheed came. They couldn't stop him.

                            JO stats against Detroit in the 03-04 season before Sheed:

                            22 points (10-18 shooting), 15 rebounds, Pacers win

                            19 points (9-20 shooting), 11 rebounds, Pacers win

                            28 points ( 10-17 shooting), 15 rebounds, Pacers win.


                            Total mandhandling. The Pacers would have easily cruised past Detroit in 2004 if Detroit didn't get so lucky that Rasheed Wallace just happened to be out there for practically nothing (remember - Artest behaved well that season). All the credit in the world to Dumars for making it happen, but when else in league history has a contender been able to get one of the better players in the league for such an extremely low cost? Even Houston had to give up the well-liked Otis Thorpe for Drexler in 1995. Again - all the credit in the world to Detroit for seizing a championship deal, but that kind of thing just doesn't happen much at the deadline.

                            Sheed changed everything about the Pistons. He is what turned them into such an intimidating great team. He gave them all of their swagger. Unfortunately for us, he also knew how to defend JO very well since he was such a savvy veteran defender and knew JO from their Portland days.

                            No way Detroit ever gets to The Finals without him. They wouldn't have beat us in 04 or Miami in 05 without Sheed.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-11-2020, 09:44 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Ichi View Post

                              You're making up some narrative here. I would argue Rasheed was more important for that team, and man could do it all against top tier forwards in that time, including defend.

                              Edit: this looks a bit more harsh than I meant. I just mean to say that not having Ben Wallace doesn't mean there isn't value placed in defense. Offense is more important in basketball, but if a guy can just get buckets, he's not being considered in the top 50 either.
                              I would argue that Ben Wallace is also a 4 time all-star, same as Rasheed. However he is also a multi time DPOY, led league in rebounds and blocks, was all NBA team multi time (Rasheed not once).

                              However it's all subjective, so if you don't think he belongs in there then that's your right.

                              However it would be nice if you (you to Sollozzo) would type out your top 50 so we can all view them as well.


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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hmmm, Haven't been on here since the NBA suspended play. That's a long time. Going to have to spend some time thinking about this one. I am sure that several people that show up on these lists will not make mine. So, how to select the best? How about taking the 5 positions, and selecting the best 10 players for each. That has it's own issues as some players were tweeners or played multiple positions. Have to balance stats and results. With the results, you have to factor in the quality of the teams they played on. Looks to me like I've got a spreadsheet solution coming up. Should be fun. More importantly, I hope everyone is doing well. Both my wife and I are quite healthy, and our sons and their families. We have been blessed. Cheers, glad to be back! Bobby

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X