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

  • #76
    Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    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.

    That line wasn't put into effect because of Shaq. In fact that line has nothing to do with playing one-on-one post defense. It only impacts help defense.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 09-02-2008, 11:20 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

      Originally posted by intridcold View Post
      Did the NBA not allow the "zone" for Shaq? Or was that allowed to create more offense?
      I think it was changed for two reasons:

      1. to discourage the "Iso" play that had become so prevalent in the NBA.

      2. nobody but hardcore NBA watchers understood the old rule. Even for them (us), it fell under Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" rule...in other words, we couldn't really explain it, but we could call it when we saw it.

      Here's a quote from CNNSI from ca 2002:

      Designed to improve the flow and pace of the game and reduce teams' dependance on isolation plays, the new rules will be tested during summer league play before officially taking effect next season.
      I actually don't think the circle under the basket was put in for Shaq. It was supposed to codify a long-standing "rule of thumb" about not calling a charge if a guy was too far under the basket. It was more to protect players from being undercut than to help Shaq (though we've discussed before that they're no longer calling it correctly).

      The one rule that was instituted specifically for Shaq was the "under 2 minute" rule that prevented players away from the ball from being intentionally fouled. Or, more accurately, the team gets the FT's and the ball if any player is fouled "Away from the Ball" intentionally. This was designed specifically to keep teams from playing "Hack-a-Shaq" late in quarters.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

        Lest we forget yet another big man who was so dominant in his day that not
        only were rules changed because of him, but he was even given the nickname
        "Mr. Basketball":

        George Mikan

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mikan

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

          count55 - you are correct the refs never called a charge if the defender was too far under the basket. (refs rarely called charging back in the day). The semi-corcle was put in just so the refs had an exact standard

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            It counts for something with Russell because he was the primary cause of those rings whereas of course a guy like Salley played a much smaller role. Bill lead his teams.
            While he may have anchored the team, how hard is leading 5-6 other HOF players?

            We aren't talking about fringe players who just got in, but Cousy and Havlicek type players who are also top 50.

            I always ask the question, if you swap the two players what happens. Do you think that the Celts lose any of those titles if Wilt was in Boston? I doubt it.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

              Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
              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.

              That's the exact reason Wilt doesn't have more titles.......... he couldn't single handedly do it himself. Compare the other Celtic players Russell played with to Wilt's team mates! There lies the reason why Wilt doesn't have more titles.

              Substitute Russell for Wilt on Wilt's teams, do you think Russell would have made those teams as good as Wilt did or have won as many championships as he did in Boston? Absolutely not!!

              Unlike most posters, I've seen every big man play for the last 50 plus years, and Wilt was the best Big Man EVER!

              Interesting stat would be to see how many times the bigs mentioned in this thread fouled out of games in their careers. My guess is Moses Malone would have the fewest. I don't have the memory I use to have, but I'm not sure Moses ever fouled out of a game. I could be mistaken about that, but for some reason it sounds right.
              Last edited by Justin Tyme; 09-02-2008, 12:11 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                While he may have anchored the team, how hard is leading 5-6 other HOF players?

                We aren't talking about fringe players who just got in, but Cousy and Havlicek type players who are also top 50.

                I always ask the question, if you swap the two players what happens. Do you think that the Celts lose any of those titles if Wilt was in Boston? I doubt it.
                Well, I think Stilt was better than Russell...But he did lose one Finals with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, two guys both considered Top 5 of All Time at their respective positions. And he lost another with Jerry, a past-his-prime Elgin and Gail Goodrich.

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                Interesting stat would be to see how many times the bigs mentioned in this thread fouled out of games in their careers. My guess is Moses Malone would have the fewest. I don't have the memory I use to have, but I'm not sure Moses ever fouled out of a game. I could be mistaken about that, but for some reason it sounds right.
                That was Wilt. He never fouled out.

                He also led the League in assists one year, making him the only player to ever lead the League in all three major stat categories (points, boards, dimes). He undoubtedly led the League in blocks at least once as well even though they weren't recorded back then.

                He also has the only Double Triple Double: 22 points, 25 boards and 21 assists. Not even Jason Kidd can claim that one.
                Last edited by JayRedd; 09-02-2008, 12:28 PM.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                  Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                  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
                  I think you have to look at this from two different perspectives.

                  From an offensive standpoint, Shaq benefited greatly from modern rules regarding contact and hard fouls in the lane. Basically, you breathe on a player having the ball near the basket and a foul is called. Modern players also benefit greatly when it comes to continuation and and 3-point plays.

                  During Wilt's era, minor contact on shots was hardly ever called as long as the shot went in. There was no such thing as a flagrant foul and players were rarely ejected for hard, intentional fouls unless they were head-hunting in the lane or undercutting players taking jump shots.

                  Shaq's complaining in recent years about players practically breaking his wrists with hard fouls would have earned him a lot of laughs during Wilt's era.

                  From a defensive standpoint, Wilt may have had an advantage since more contact was allowed in the lane in his era. Wilt never fouled out of a game in his career. A case could probably be made that both players benefited from fewer fouls being called against them due to being stars.

                  The way I rate these players is by considering who I would want if I were starting a team from scratch.

                  Wilt - no matter what my need is, he's #1.

                  Russell - equal (if not slightly better than Wilt) defensively, a glue guy for your team, better offensively than his stats revealed (always surrounded by superior offensive players), one of the fiercest competitors ever

                  Below this, it gets a little foggy, depending on what your emphasis is.

                  Hakeem - excellent post moves, very quick defender

                  Kareem - automatic sky-hook. With today's rules no one, not even Wilt or Russell, could have prevented him from scoring.

                  Walton - best outlet pass off of a defensive rebound the game has ever seen, very good shooter to 18 feet or so.

                  Moses Malone - different from most players in that he was skinny early in his career yet still excelled as a bulky center later in his career. Excellent rebounder, scorer and defender whether skinny or bulky.

                  Gilmore - I believe Artis does deserve mention. Not good outside of 6-7 feet offensively, but had so much wing span that he was almost automatic at or inside that range. That same wing span made him a real force defensively, despite not being very quick or mobile.

                  Duncan - an excellent player at both ends of the floor who can score inside or out.

                  The original superstar center was George Mikan. None of us saw him play, but he was the first decent big man to play the game.
                  Last edited by beast23; 09-02-2008, 12:27 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    Interesting stat would be to see how many times the bigs mentioned in this thread fouled out of games in their careers. My guess is Moses Malone would have the fewest. I don't have the memory I use to have, but I'm not sure Moses ever fouled out of a game. I could be mistaken about that, but for some reason it sounds right.
                    Moses Malone holds the longest streak without fouling out at 1,212 games, but he did foul out 6 times early in his career.

                    Wilt Chamberlain (according to this website) was one of only 9 players to have played over 400 games and to have never been disqualified. (He played 1045 career regular season games.)

                    Interestingly enough, of the nine players listed, three not only played for the Pacers, but they were Hoosier natives: Don Buse, Jerry Sichting, and Randy Wittman.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Well, I think Stilt was better than Russell...But he did lose one Finals with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, two guys both considered Top 5 of All Time at their respective positions. And he lost another with Jerry, a past-his-prime Elgin and Gail Goodrich.
                      Yeah, to Havlicek, Russell, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell. All HOF'ers.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                        Another great yet unhearlded center...and also the first player to record a
                        quadruple-double:

                        Nate Thurmond

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Thurmond


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Yeah, to Havlicek, Russell, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell. All HOF'ers.
                          And in an upset to Clyde Frazier, Willis Reed, Dave DeBusschere and Dollar Bill.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                            Originally posted by burnzone View Post
                            1. Wilt Chamberlain

                            2. Bill Russell

                            3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

                            4. Hakeem Olajuwon

                            5. Moses Malone
                            Ditto! But that's me voting with my heart. I can't deny how dominant Shaq has been though and I can't ignore the fact that he's taken 3 teams to the finals and won 4 out of those 5 times. So I guess, I'd replace Big Mo with Shaq.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                              Ok.

                              These are my top 5

                              Wilt Chamberlain
                              Bill Russell
                              Rick Smits
                              Brad Pitt
                              Joe Barry Carrol

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Who Is The Best Big Man Of All Time?

                                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                                The one rule that was instituted specifically for Shaq was the "under 2 minute" rule that prevented players away from the ball from being intentionally fouled. Or, more accurately, the team gets the FT's and the ball if any player is fouled "Away from the Ball" intentionally. This was designed specifically to keep teams from playing "Hack-a-Shaq" late in quarters.
                                Are you sure?

                                I think that rule was already in existence, but never needed. The "away from the ball" wording was modified (unlike the NCAA, there is no such violation as an "intentional foul" in the NBA. NBA officials do not judge "intent" and a flagrant foul is based on "unnecessary" contact and an away-from-the-ball foul is based on, well, the offensive player being away from the ball.)

                                I could be wrong about the actual rule, but intentional foul strategies existed long before Shaq ever stepped on the court.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X