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

Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

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

  • #31
    Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

    Wilt's prime:
    61-62 Phil. 80 *3882 *1597 *3159 .506 *835 *1363 .613 *2052 192 123 0 *4029 *25.7 2.4 *50.4

    Shaq's prime:
    99-00 LAL 79 79 40.0 0.574 0.000 0.524 4.3 9.4 13.6 3.8 0.5 3.0 2.82 3.20 29.7

    I've highlighted points per game and rebounds per game. Wilt averaged almost as many rebounds per game as Shaq scored.

    50 points per game for a season. How many games has Shaq scored 50 points in?

    The big giant differance between Shaq and Wilt is that not only was Wilt super strong he was a great athlete. He did the high jump in college on track and was very very quick when he was younger. Shaq has always been strong and was also quick for his size when he was younger but he never could jump like Wilt.


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

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

      Your forgetting the obvious:

      1. Manute Bol
      2. Shawn Bradley
      "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

      --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

        The Pacers might have the funniest list of big men ever
        1. Drieling
        2. Mate Skelin
        3. Zan Tabak
        4. Greg Kite ( the guy has multiple championship ring)
        5. Stuart Gray
        6. Bruno Sundov

        Please help me out with other names!! (Thanks)

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

          One thing to add about Wilt....he was the only center in the history of the NBA to lead the league in assists!!!
          Go Pacers!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

            I am pretty sure Wilt played in the pre shot clock era. I am also pretty sure he wasn't being consistently triple teamed or intentionally fouled.
            "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

              Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
              I am pretty sure Wilt played in the pre shot clock era.
              The shot clock was instituted in 1954. Wilt played from 1959 to 1973, so he played his entire career with a shot clock. In any case, had your statement was correct, it would've made Wilt's numbers more impressive because scoring was much lower pre-shot clock, so I have no idea why you were going there.

              I am also pretty sure he wasn't being consistently triple teamed or intentionally fouled.
              Wilt played his entire career with the traditional illegal defense, and Shaq played in his prime with illegal defense, basically making triple teams practically impossible to sustain.

              Over his career, Wilt averaged 11.4 Free Throw attempts per game, while Shaq has averaged 10.0. Shaq's peak was 13.1 (00-01), and he averaged 10+ in 9 other seasons. Wilt's peak was 17.0 per game (61-62), and he averaged over 12 FTA's per game in seven other seasons, and over 10 on three more occasions. Wilt played 1045 career games vs. Shaq 1042 career-to-date, yet shot 1,486 more Free Throws than Shaq. Either he was much, much better at drawing fouls than Shaq was, or he had more than his fair share of intentional fouls.
              Last edited by count55; 09-01-2008, 03:56 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                I am pretty sure Wilt played in the pre shot clock era. I am also pretty sure he wasn't being consistently triple teamed or intentionally fouled.
                Not consistently and intentionally fouled? You must be kidding.

                Here is an excerpt from his bio:

                The rookie Chamberlain then shocked the Warriors' fans by saying he was thinking of retiring. He was tired of being subjected to double- and triple teams, and teams coming down on him with hard fouls. Chamberlain feared he might lose his cool one day. As Celtics forward Tom Heinsohn said, himself no stranger to dirty play against Chamberlain: "Half the fouls against him [Chamberlain] were hard fouls ... he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever".

                Shaq was bigger and IMO probably had a little more brute force, but he was not as athletic, not the shot-blocker and not close to being as dominant on the offensive end. Maybe the last point was due to lesser competition, but I don't think so. All things considered, it's not easy making the comparison.

                I saw Wilt play only a few years and I saw Shaq his entire career and while at LSU. I don't remember Wilt dwarfing the other players as much, but I do remember how Wilt could get up in the air in a way that would make Shaq far more dominant. That's one reason I would rank Wilt above Shaq.

                Wilt is more like a bigger more physical version of Dwight Howard from my recollection. I have no doubt it would be the ultimate big man battle if both Shaq and Wilt played each other in their prime...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                  I don't even see how you can argue Shaq was more dominant. 50 and 25. For the season. Think about that at least twice. Honestly, I can't truly comprehend it. I just can't imagine in 2008 a player doing that. The fact that it ever happened is incredible.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                    Shaq changed the offensive foul perception

                    I actually feel that he was handcuffed in a way when it came to his talents.

                    Other centers/players were so overmatched that they decided to start overacting the contact that they drew with Shaq

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                      hmm

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                        1. Wilt Chamberlain
                        2. Bill Russell
                        3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
                        4. Tim Duncan
                        5. Hakeem Olajuwon
                        6. George Mikan
                        7. Shaquille O'Neal
                        8. Moses Malone
                        9. Bob Pettit
                        10. David Robinson

                        In my mind, the first three are interchangeable, depending on what you value more - individual greatness, team success, or overall longevity and production.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                          1. Wilt Chamberlain
                          2. Bill Russell
                          3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
                          4. Tim Duncan
                          5. Hakeem Olajuwon
                          6. George Mikan
                          7. Shaquille O'Neal
                          8. Moses Malone
                          9. Bob Pettit
                          10. David Robinson

                          In my mind, the first three are interchangeable, depending on what you value more - individual greatness, team success, or overall longevity and production.
                          I'd question Mikan, but otherwise, this list seems pretty reasonable.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                            Perhaps it isn't the shot clock I am thinking of. I know I have read somewhere on numerous occasions, however, that there were factors present in the league back then that allowed Wilt to dominate in the fashion that he did.
                            "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I don't even see how you can argue Shaq was more dominant. 50 and 25. For the season. Think about that at least twice. Honestly, I can't truly comprehend it. I just can't imagine in 2008 a player doing that. The fact that it ever happened is incredible.
                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Wilt's prime:
                              61-62 Phil. 80 *3882 *1597 *3159 .506 *835 *1363 .613 *2052 192 123 0 *4029 *25.7 2.4 *50.4

                              Shaq's prime:
                              99-00 LAL 79 79 40.0 0.574 0.000 0.524 4.3 9.4 13.6 3.8 0.5 3.0 2.82 3.20 29.7

                              I've highlighted points per game and rebounds per game. Wilt averaged almost as many rebounds per game as Shaq scored.

                              50 points per game for a season. How many games has Shaq scored 50 points in?

                              The big giant differance between Shaq and Wilt is that not only was Wilt super strong he was a great athlete. He did the high jump in college on track and was very very quick when he was younger. Shaq has always been strong and was also quick for his size when he was younger but he never could jump like Wilt.
                              I think it's tough to compare players from different eras. In general, I think people vastly underestimate Shaq's dominance in his prime.

                              Assuming Shaq's 2000 season was his best and Wilt's '62 season was his best...

                              Shaq played 3163 minutes in 2000...Wilt played 3882 minutes in 1 more game.

                              Shaq shot 1665 FGA and 824 FTA...Wilt shot 3159 FGA and 1363 FTA

                              Wilt was so athletically superior and the game was so different that he could play more and shoot more. More parity was present in 2000 so Shaq could "only" play 40 MPG. If we adjust their numbers to 36 MPG, we find that Wilt would average 37 and 20 while Shaq would average 27 and 12 on ten less field goals per game.

                              Looking deeper into the stats, FGs tell a big story. Shaq's Lakers shot 24 FG and 12 FT less than Wilt's Warriors. The Lakers also shot 46% while the Warriors shot 43% buoyed by Wilt's ridiculous %. The Warriors were not an anomaly either. Their shot numbers are fairly regular. However, with 24 FG and 12 FT extra per game, it's not hard to see how Wilt could get and extra 8 rebounds and 10 points per game. Looking at Player Efficiency Rating (PER), Shaq's 2000 season and Wilt's 1962 season are nearly identical, and that formula is still leaving out some of the comparative era-advantages Wilt had and Shaq didn't

                              And I'm also not buying the blocks argument. Wilt was the only guy taller than 6'9" on his team and a superior athlete. Other teams were similarly constructed. Wilt would be expected to have many blocks.
                              Last edited by rexnom; 09-01-2008, 04:32 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                                How does a guy with Wilt's numbers only win 2 titles?
                                "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X