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

  • Redoing the top 50 players of all time

    Since we are all bored and have nothing better to talk about let us take the time to look at the top 50 players selected by the NBA in 1996. It's been 24 years since it was announced and in that time we have had some of the all time greats play. It would make more sense to just say that we were going to do the top 75 and just add players, but what would be the fun of that. I want to see who gets bumped and who we add. Obviously recency bias is going to play a lot and I mean A LOT into this.

    Here is the list as it stands, as you can tell I've just copied and pasted.
    Now knowing who we have I'm going to further break this down into three different category's. 1. mortal locks 2. probably safe 3. on the bubble.

    1. MORTAL LOCKS (meaning no matter who we add these players are still going to be there

    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Charles Barkley, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, George Mikan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, John Stockton, Jerry West

    That's 15 mortal locks IMO

    2. Probably safe (meaning that we might debate newer players but most likely these guys will stay)

    Elgin Baylor, Bob Cousy, Clyde Drexler, Julius Erving, Walt Frazier, John Havlicek, Elvin Hayes, Jerry Lucas, Kevin McHale, Bob Pettit, Scottie Pippen, Willis Reed, David Robinson, Isiah Thomas, Wes Unseld, James Worthy

    That's 16 probably safe players

    3. On the bubble

    Nate Archibald, Paul Arizin, Rick Berry, Dave Bing, Dave Cowens, Billy Cunningham, Dave DeBusschere, Patrick Ewing, George Gervin, Hal Greer, Sam Jones, Pete Maravich, Earl Monroe, Robert Parish, Dolph Schayes, Bill Sharman, Nate Thurmond, Bill Walton Lenny Wilkins

    That's 19 bubble players

    Now understand I am not making the statement that the bubble players are out, I'm just saying that most likely IMO they are up for discussion. Yes even I question some of my choices of safe vs bubble as an example I would likely have Ewing and Monroe in the probably safe list but I think they can be debated.

    Now what I want people to do is give me your list of who you would put in there but most importantly you need to list who you will take out. Some are going to be no brainers but let's see how the process plays out.

    Since the NBA at the time allowed current players playing to be picked (Shaq most notably) I say we will let current players be picked as well.

    Here are some options going forward but not limited to are LeBron James, Koby Bryant, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durrant, Steve Nash and Steph Curry and I'm sure there are many more.


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

  • #2
    We should definitely allow current players to be picked because tons of players picked in 96-97 were active (Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem, Drob, Stockton, Malone, Barkley, etc).

    Not sure which of the bubble guys I'd remove because a lot were before my time, but here are obvious locks who are certainly kicking someone out:

    Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, Kevin Garnett, Steph Curry, Dwyane Wade. These are all automatic.



    Here are some"Bubble" guys from the modern era who might not be unanimous consensus:

    Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd (either it's both Nash/Kidd or neither because their careers are so close), Gary Payton.

    Kawhi Leonard is certainly headed to the list at some point (2 titles with 2 different teams).

    I'm sure I overlooked some players.

    Comment


    • #3
      Rick Barry should still be a lock. Top-7 small forward of all time, still.

      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Rick Barry should still be a lock. Top-7 small forward of all time, still.
        I debated him there, really should have put him in the probably safe instead of on the bubble, but it is what it is at this point.


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

        Comment


        • #5
          my initial list. Didn’t think about it for that long.

          Manu and Davis were my last 2 in, Dominique and Worthy were my last 2 cuts.

          Mikan
          Wilt
          Russell
          Baylor
          Pettit
          West
          Jones
          Robertson
          Baylor
          Havlicek
          Erving
          Barry
          Gervin
          Maravich
          Magic
          Kareem
          Moses
          Bird
          Drexler
          McHale
          Isiah
          Jordan
          Ewing
          Pippen
          Hakeem
          Malone
          Barkley
          Stockton
          Robinson
          Kidd
          Oneal
          Garnett
          Iverson
          Duncan
          Kobe
          TMac
          Pierce
          Nash
          Dirk
          Wade
          Ginobili
          Paul
          Lebron
          Anthony
          Durant
          Curry
          Giannis
          Thompson
          Leonard
          Davis

          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


          • #6
            Not that I disagree per se but curious why McHale but not Worthy? I've also been debating on my own list about Maravich. Hell of a player but not a lot of team success so I'm conflicted.


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

            Comment


            • #7
              McHale was just a more dominant player. 2nd best on multiple title teams, while you could say Worthy was at most 2nd banana once, in 88. Also one of the best defensive players of his era before he broke his foot. Worthy was one of the all time elite finishers, but McHale was an automatic double team the moment he got the ball within 12 feet of the rim. Borderline unguardable.

              Pete was just so remarkably skilled. He was doing things in the 70s that guards of today can’t even do. I like to reward winning but that can’t be the end-all. He was not only a ridiculous passer but also a guy capable of tuning Walt Frazier up for 68 points with no 3 point line. I can see a day where I leave him off the list, but today is not that day.
              Last edited by Kstat; 04-23-2020, 07:30 PM.

              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


              • #8
                Manu was really good, but no way is he a top 50 all time player. Ray Allen, Gary Payton, and Reggie Miller would deserve a spot over him. Probably a decent amount of other players too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  He’s got more rings than the 3 of them combined. And he was the 2nd best guy on at least two of those. Wasn’t a choice I took lightly but he was the quintessential guy that was clearly capable of greater numbers that sacrificed in order to be a winner. He’s a better playmaker than Payton, Miller or Allen. In his prime he was probably the 2nd best slashing guard in the entire league next to Wade.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 04-23-2020, 09:11 PM.

                  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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    He’s got more rings than the 3 of them combined. And he was the 2nd best guy on at least two of those. Wasn’t a choice I took lightly but he was the quintessential guy that was clearly capable of greater numbers that sacrificed in order to be a winner. He’s a better playmaker than Payton, Miller or Allen. In his prime he was probably the 2nd best slashing guard in the entire league next to Wade.
                    I’m sure all of them would have had plenty of rings had they played with Tim Duncan too (not to mention Leonard at the very end). If we’re putting so much emphasis on rings, then where is Rodman on the list? 5 rings with two different franchises.

                    I didn’t even put Reggie on my list because I do think he just misses out, but Reggie being the best player on multiple deep playoff runs without ever really having a true reliable #2 scorer alongside him (Smits and Rose each had one really big postseason) is more impressive than winning rings with Duncan and Parker, IMHO.

                    I’m not trying to discount his career by any means. I was always a fan - hell of a player. But he’s nowhere even close to top 50 all time IMHO.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, Rodman has 5 rings...and was not the best or 2nd best player on any of those teams. Manu was.

                      if you just break down what Manu did on a basketball court, it’s clear he could have been a 25-28 point scorer in his prime with elite passing ability in traffic. The rings are just the evidence.

                      manu was one of the last guys to make my list, but I couldn’t make a case for any of the other guys I considered over him.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 04-23-2020, 09:48 PM.

                      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


                      • #12
                        I'd say he was the second best in 2005. I think Parker edged him out in 2007, but either way it was close. It's not like he was a clear second best player in the mold of Scottie Pippen. Him and Parker were pretty close for most of those years - big contributors on a loaded team with Tim Duncan and later Leonard. I don't think being the second best player on title teams automatically puts guys like Gaosl, Thompson, Irving in there either (assuming the latter two continue their trajectories). But speaking of Gasol - I think I'd rank him over Manu to be honest.

                        Maybe he could have been a 25-28 PPG scorer, but his career average is barely half that. I think 25-28 is a stretch - only one time did he knock at 20 PPG. 25-28 is Wade numbers. I'm not even trying to knock Manu because he was a very good player and clearly a winner. Just nowhere even close to a top 50 all time NBA player. A guy like Ray Allen was way above him, not to mention several others.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          if you just break down what Manu did on a basketball court, . . . . .
                          The guy caught a bat. Maybe if he was on vacation in Wuhan, this whole thing might not have happened.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                            The guy caught a bat. Maybe if he was on vacation in Wuhan, this whole thing might not have happened.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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






                              Last edited by Peck; 05-06-2020, 05:32 PM.


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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X