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.
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
-
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Most of the centers in Wilt's era were about 6'9". Wilt was about 7'2".Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
I think Russell was about 6'10".
During the Shaq era, we saw most of the guys that would have been good centers move to power forward and every team wanted a huge wide body at center. This enabled a lot of guys to have a career that were not good enough to be in the league. Today since Shaq is no longer dominant, many of the good players have begun to play center again and they're calling it small ball.“It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden
Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Interesting perspective. I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm referring to the idea that we've always had plenty of centers, but most slid over to power forward to put a huge guy in the middle.Originally posted by dlewyus View PostComment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Taking nothing away from Wilt; would it be a fair statement to say that the league (as a whole) was less athletic during Wilt's time than it was during Shaq's?Originally posted by Peck View PostComment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Wilt's numbers were one of the reasons he did not win as many titles. In fact, when he shared the ball more his teams were more successful.Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
Also, he faced an incredible run by the Celtics, including the greatest defensive player of all time. Otherwise, he would probably have a couple more. In any event, Wilt is proof that a great player...however great he is...does not make a team. It also proves just how important defense can be. But-for Bill Russell, Wilt would have averaged 50 and 30 in the playoffs...Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Ron Jeremy.Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
this was a really good read on Wilt.
http://www.ringsurf.com/online/1690-...amberlain.html
Home >> Write >> Sports >> Basketball >> NBA >> Featured Article NBA >> Remembering Wilt ChamberlainRemembering Wilt Chamberlain
Remembering Wilt Chamberlain (1936-1999)
When most people mention the greats of basketball, you will always here the name Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neal, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Bill Russell, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Rarely, you will hear Wilt Chamberlain’s name mentioned consistently. Why is that? With all the achievements that Wilt ’The Stilt’ Chamberlain accomplished, it should be a clear no-brainer that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest and most dominant basketball player that has ever played the game!
We understand that most of today’s growing NBA fan base is youngsters – attracted by today high-flying, tomahawk dunking athletes in the NBA’s hip hop culture. The NBA gets plenty of exposure these days, equipped with the all the flash and pizzazz of from abundant media coverage, and a multitude of lucrative advertising contracts. Young fans of today just don’t know about the evolution of the one of the most popular sports league in the world. Despite superficially hearing the names and feats of Bill Russell’s, and his 9 championships with Boston, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s amazing longevity and 4 championships, relatively little coverage is devoted to Wilt Chamberlain. Although Chamberlain won only 2 championships in his illustrious career, his awe-inspiring, hard-to-believe individual accomplishments, is what sets him apart from other basketball players.
No other player in NBA history has spawned so many myths nor created such an impact. With the NBA growing more big and athletic, it is not far-fetched to say that Chamberlain would not have been as effective. But there is no doubt in my mind that he would still have been a legendary force, and the crown jewel of all the NBA’s stars. Although his feats were often credited to his tremendous size, Chamberlain was a true natural who possessed exceptional speed, agility, stamina and strength.
He was irrefutably basketball’s most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen. During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending, and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws - Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket.
Born on August 21st, 1936, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Chamberlain drew national attention playing at Overbrook High School, already becoming a legend. In his tenure there, some of Chamberlain’s accomplishments include leading his school to two city championships (1954, 1955). He also amassed an amazing 2,252 points. Such highlights include scoring 90 points, including 60 in a 12-minute span, against Roxborough High School. He averaged 44.5 ppg in his senior year. It was also during this time that one of his nicknames, ’the Stilt’, was coined by a local newspaper writer. When graduating, Chamberlain was the most hyped high school recruit, where he opted to go to one of the most storied basketball programs – the University of Kansas.
He opted for the storied basketball program at the University of Kansas. Chamberlain made his debut for the Jayhawks’ varsity squad in a game against Northwestern on Dec. 3, 1956. He set a school record when he scored 52 points in an 87-69 victory. Chamberlain proceeded to guide Kansas to the 1957 NCAA title game against top-ranked North Carolina. Although North Carolina beat Kansas by one point in triple overtime, Chamberlain was named the tournament’s Most Outstanding Player.
At Kansas, Chamberlain found himself guarded by as many as three players at one time. And, when opponents weren’t gang-guarding him, they held the ball for long stretches. Frustrated by these tactics, Chamberlain decided to forego his senior season at Kansas, opting instead to turn pro. Chamberlain could not enter the league right away, since an NBA rule that prevented college players from playing in the league until their class graduated. He then signed a contract with the Harlem Globetrotters in 1958-59 for a salary reported to be around $50,000, an astronomical sum at the time.
The following year, Chamberlain joined the Philadelphia Warriors, who had selected him in a territorial draft the previous years. At 7-1, 280 pounds, Chamberlain, who had always been behemothly strong, was a veritable Tower of Power. The basketball world eagerly awaited the young giant’s debut - and he didn’t disappoint. In his first game, against the New York Knicks, he pumped in 43 points and grabbed 28 rebounds. In a sensational rookie year, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 points and 27.0 rebounds and was named NBA Rookie of the Year, All-Star Game Most Valuable Player and NBA Most Valuable Player as well as being selected to the All-NBA First Team. Only Wes Unseld, from the then Baltimore Bullets, would duplicate Chamberlain’s feat of winning Rookie of the Year and MVP honors in the same season (1968-69).
With Chamberlain, the Warriors vaulted from last to second and faced the Boston Celtics in the 1960 NBA Playoffs. The series saw the first postseason confrontation between Chamberlain and defensive standout Bill Russell, a match-up that would grow into the greatest individual rivalry in the NBA and possibly any sport. During the next decade, the pair would square off in the playoffs eight times. Chamberlain came away the victor only once. In that initial confrontation, Chamberlain outscored Russell by 81 points, but the Celtics took the series, four games to two.
In his rookie year, and for throughout his career, opposing teams simply didn’t have an effective strategy to defend him. It would take a team-defense concept to slow him down. Because of this, Chamberlain was the recipient to many hard fouls, which took a heavy toll. After the postseason loss to Boston, the rookie stunned his fans by announcing that he was thinking of retiring because of the excessively rough treatment he had endured from opponents. He feared that if he played another season, he would be forced to retaliate, and that wasn’t something he wanted to do.
Despite his astonishing strength, Chamberlain never did retaliate, despite the continuation of hard fouls he would receive on a nightly basis. One indication of this was the amazing statistic that not once in his 14-year career, in more than 1,200 regular and postseason games, did he foul out.
In his second season (1960-61), a virtual repeat of his rookie year, he poured in 38.4 points and 27.2 rebounds per game in 1960-61. However, Chamberlain’s third NBA season (1961-62) would prove to be his benchmark year – where he accomplished some of the most startling feats in basketball history.
On March 2, 1962, Chamberlain set a record that may stand forever. In a game against the New York Knicks in Hershey, Pa., he scored 100 points in four quarters to help the Warriors win the game, 169-147. Despite the fact that Chamberlain had reportedly stayed out all night the previous evening, he obviously came ready to play against the Knicks. Chamberlain was so in the zone that he even made 28 of 32 free throws, despite being a career 50% free throw shooter. Over the course of the season, Chamberlain averaged 48.5 minutes, and a staggering 50.4 points, and 25.7 rebounds per game. He became the only player in history to score 4,000 points in a season. This was one of the greatest individual seasons in the history of sports.
In 1962, Chamberlain moved with the franchise to San Francisco, and he led the league in scoring in both 1962-63 and 1963-64. During his first seven years Chamberlain scored an average of 39.4 points per game and led the league in scoring all seven seasons, a string matched only by Michael Jordan two decades later. In the 1963-64 season, Chamberlain guided the San Francisco Warrior to the NBA finals against the powerful Boston Celtics. The Warriors were no match for Boston’s talent-laden team, as they lost in five games.
The following season saw Wilt traded back to Philadelphia, now called the 76ers, in an attention-grabbing blockbuster trade. In Philadelphia, he joined a promising 76ers team that included future Hall-of-Famer, Hal Greer. The following season (1965-66), with Wilt now comfortable in the Sixer’s system, Philadelphia transformed from a mediocre team to having the best record in the league. But for the second year in a row the 76ers fell to Boston in the Eastern Division Finals. For his efforts, Chamberlain was named the NBA’s MVP. He would be given the award for the additional next two seasons.
The next year would be one of the greatest seasons by an NBA team. Philadelphia added talented forward Billy Cunningham, a future Hall-of-Famer, and started the year by winning 45 of its first 49 games en route to an 68-13 record, at the time the best in league history. The division finals saw the much anticipated 76ers-Celtics match-up. After years of frustration, Chamberlain finally defeated his archrival, Bill Russell, as Philadelphia soundly defeated Boston in five games, ending the Celtics’ eight-year stranglehold on the NBA title. Playing his former San Francisco Warriors in the NBA Finals, the Sixers came away with the championship, winning the series in six games, and Wilt’s first championship.
After his monstrous scoring year in 1961-62, Chamberlain’s average dropped slowly each year until the 1967-68 season, when it rose slightly to 24.3 points per game from 24.1 the season before. In Chamberlain’s second seven years, he averaged 20.7 points. Despite the waning offensive production, Chamberlain was still effective, becoming a better team player. Chamberlain said, that he could continually duplicate his high scoring, but his coaches asked him to stop shooting, and get his team more involved by passing more.
Chamberlain appeared to relish in his new passing role. In the 76ers 1967 championship year, Wilt average 7.8 assists per game, 3rd in the league. This was unheard of for a non-point guard, much less a 7-1 center. The following year, he led the league with 8.3 assists. Proving his versatility, this record, which has never been duplicated, and may never will, is on par with his scoring accomplishments.
In the 1968-69 season, the Los Angeles Lakers made news by trading for Chamberlain. By adding Wilt to a lineup that included future Hall-of-Famers, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich, the Lakers felt confident about capturing their first NBA title, after many years of being runner-up. The heavily favored Lakers cruised through the season and playoffs to setup a showdown with the Celtics in what would be one of the most memorable NBA finals. The Celtics stunned the basketball world by pulling out the upset victory by a mere two points in the decisive 7th game, which also marked the last game of Bill Russell.
The following year, the Lakers returned to the NBA finals against the New York Knicks, in another memorable final. Forever etched into NBA lore, was the return of injured Knicks Center, Willis Reed, hobbling down through the tunnel of Madison Square Gardens to join his team. Reed provided an emotional lift for his team, and the inspired Knicks went on to a 113-99 victory in another Game 7. It would not be until the 1971-71 season, that the Lakers would accomplish their goal, after Bill Russell retired.
The 1971-72 Lakers set an NBA record by winning 33 games in a row en route to a then NBA-record 69-13 regular-season mark, one victory better than Chamberlain’s 1966-67 Sixers team. Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls would post a 72-10 record in 1995-96. Although he scored only 14.8 points per game, Wilt’s contributions came in other forms. At age 35, he managed to grab 19.2 rebounds per contest and was selected to the NBA All-Defensive First Team.
The Lakers then stormed to the championship with a five-game triumph against New York in the 1972 NBA Finals. Chamberlain was named the NBA Finals MVP.
In what would be Chamberlain’s last season, the Lakers made their way back to the NBA Finals. Chamberlain was still effective, at age 36, averaging 13.2 points and 18.6 rebounds a game. The finals pitted the Lakers against the Knicks, for the third time in the last four seasons. The Lakers were no match for the motivated Knicks, led by a healthy Willis Reed, as they lost in five games.
Dominating the game as few players in any sport ever have, Chamberlain seemed capable of scoring and rebounding at will, despite the double- and triple-teams and constant fouling tactics that opposing teams used to try to shut him down. Chamberlain had literally filled up the NBA record books when he retired. His name appears so often in the scoring record books that his name could be the default response any time a question arises concerning a scoring record in the NBA. Some of his accomplishments in the NBA career include:- A career average of 30.1 points, 22.9 rebounds, 4.4 assists per game over 1045 career games (14 seasons).
- Scored 31,419 points (30.1 ppg) and had 23,924 rebound (22.9) in 1,045 pro games, best in the league when he retired; both categories currently second all-time behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
- 4-time NBA MVP (1960, 1966-68).
- 2 NBA Championships (1967, 1972) NBA Finals MVP (1972).
- All-NBA First Team (1960-62, 1964-68), All-NBA Second Team (1963, 1965, 1972).
- NBA All-Defensive First Team (1972, 1973).
- 13-time NBA All-Star (1960-69, 1971-73), MVP in the 1960 game.
- 7-time NBA scoring leader seven straight years (1960-66), including a career-high 50.4 ppg in 1962.
- 11-time NBA rebounding leader (1960-63, 1966-69, 1971-73).
- 7-time NBA minutes leader (1961-64, 1966-68).
- 1-time NBA assists leader (1968).
- Single game record for points in one game (100, March 2, 1962).
- Scored 50 or more points 118 times – including 45 times, seven consecutively in the 1961-62
- Holds single-game record for most points by a rookie (58).
- Holds record for most free throws attempted (11,862).
- Hall of Fame Inductee in 1978.
He authored four books, including an autobiography, A View from Above, in which he controversially claimed to have had sex with almost 20,000 women — this would have averaged 1.2 women per day from age 15 until his death. On Oct. 12, 1999, Chamberlain passed away at the age of 63 due to heart failure at his home.Last edited by mitch55; 09-01-2008, 07:07 PM.Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
But did he break Wilt's 20,000 record?Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
What record would you rather hold?Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Point taken, out of curiousity when did the ABA/NBA start officially recording stats? Any chance some of Wilt's numbers are exaggerated or incorrect? I know the C's went on a tear, but it is hard to imagine a guy as dominant as that couldn't single handedly lead his team to more titles.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post"The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" DanzigComment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Clearly the answer is Wilt.
Why doesn't Mel Daniels ever get any love for a question like this. Is the anti-ABA bias that strong?
Or Walt Bellamy, for that matter.
Walt could be the third best center of all time, but he playin the era where Wilt and Russell got all the attention.
http://www.nba.com/historical/player...r=walt_bellamyWhy do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
The thing you are trying to get at is possessions per game, which were much higher before control freaks like Larry Brown, Chuck Daly and Rick Carlisle slowed the game down to a snail's pace. Thus, there were more opportunities to rebound. It doesn't discredit the rebounds that Wilt, Russell and Bellamy were able to grab, it just explains why you can't really compare across eras or generations without understanding the differences.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
They don't call it the Shaq line for nothing.
You know that little semi circle area under the rim that is a no charge zone? Well that was implemented during the Shaq era, wanna guess why?
They made rules against Wilt, they made a rule for Shaq.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a short period where dunking was not allowed during Wilt's prime?
Again take away ever other stat you want. Throw out the 100 point game, throw out the 50 point game, throw out all of it. Just take the 55 rebound game against Bill Russell and the Celtics and then explain to me again how anyone else is even close.
55 rebounds in a game. It took Rik Smits 25 games to get that many rebounds and you can't blow off by saying that he did it against some no name scrub who was 6'6" tall. Not only was Russell on that team but so was Paul Silas a 6'9" bruiser and Heinson who was no pushover.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Shaq was outplayed by Olajuwan head-to-head fairly consistently - while Hakeem was in his prime. Hard for me to say he was most dominant in history based on that.
The Big 5 center order in the 90's IMO pretty much was:
1. Olajuwan
2. Shaq
3. (tie) Robinson
3. (tie) Ewing
5. MourningThe poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
I saw Wilt play...you are wrong on all accounts....shot clock (check), Triple teamed ( on every play), intentinally fouled ( does the name Jim Loscutoff mean anything to you? )Originally posted by HCPacerIN View PostGo Pacers!Comment
-
Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?
Well, if both teams are shooting a combined 50 extra field goals and 25 free throws, it seems that there could be plenty of extra rebounding opportunities...even against Bill Russell.Originally posted by Peck View PostComment
Tweet
Comment