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

Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

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

  • #76
    Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
    cannot belive this ****. in no ****ing world are dennis rodman, chris mullin, or maurice cheeks better players than reggie miller. what a ****ing joke and disgrace to pacers fans around the world.
    ...and if this was the Indiana Pacers hall of fame, you'd have a leg to stand on.

    Mullin was basically a small forward version of Reggie Miller, minus a few years, and he was a member of the first dream team, which itself is in the hall of fame. Dennis Rodman was the best defensive player and rebounder of his generation, and he has five rings. Cheeks has one and was one of the best two-way guards in the NBA for a decade.

    Of course, the fact NONE of these players got in on their first try, either...oh nevermind.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 04:49 PM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      ...and if this was the Indiana Pacers hall of fame, you'd have a leg to stand on.
      sorry kstat but i have more than enough facts to back up reggie's claim to the hall of fame. anything you want to throw out can and would be countered. but honestly, we all know your take on reggie and your opinion will never change, so please don't even bother.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

        you don't have facts. I've debunked almost all of them.

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        but honestly, we all know your take on reggie and your opinion will never change, so please don't even bother.

        ...and my opinion is what, exactly?

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Winning a ring as a 12th man hasn't changed Mitch Richmond's outlook one bit.

          I can't think of one hall of famer who got there by "ring chasing."
          So, when did fans chant either "Mitch! Mitch! Mitch!" or "Mitch sucks! Mitch sucks! Mitch sucks!" in unison at any point in his hallowed career? At what point was it plain that he would unquestionably receive the ball on a game's final play and still make the shot as Reggie did many times (yes, obviously Reggie failed many times, too, but the point remains). At what point was Mitch considered the undisputed leader of the franchise he played for while the franchise was considered a contender in the league? At what point did Mitch not only receive the full attention of opposing defenses, but all but begged for it both on the court and in the media, again to help his teammates as much as giving himself additional energy to feed off of?

          Yes, Mitch Richmond was a very good player. To equate him with Reggie, well, I guess I will simply disagree.

          K-stat, a non-rhetorical OT question for you, though. Who amongst the last Pistons squad that won the championship, if any, do you believe has any chance whatsoever to make the hall? Ben? Rasheed? Chauncey?

          Personally, I rate Ben almost as much a candidate for the hall as the Worm, who is currently on the final ballot, and yet I don't think he should make it, or even be considered for several reasons, not the least of which was his role as an instigator of and escalator of the brawl.

          Second, I think Chauncey is overall a better guard than Mark Jackson ever was due to his ability to add to the defense while still running the offense. Jackson is also on this ballot for consideration. I don't believe Jackson will probably make the hall, and I question whether Chauncey will now even though I believe he may be worthy of it.

          Third, Rasheed was a significant catalyst for the Pistons winning the championship due to his contributions on both ends of the floor and his fiery personality lead to a greater intensity of any team he ever played for. In his own right, Rasheed is likely as good a canddate as Mullin for the hall in my view despite Mullin having much better scoring and a higher profile due to being the primary player for Golden State (and I really liked his end of career contributions for the Pacers as well despite his lack of athleticism at that point).

          So, are any of those players viable candidates for consideration for the hall in your view?

          Edit

          My bad. Mark Jackson did NOT make the final ballot. I thought I read that earlier. Maybe it was the tears in my eyes over Reggie that distorted my vision...
          Last edited by Brad8888; 02-18-2011, 05:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            you don't have facts. I've debunked almost all of them.




            ...and my opinion is what, exactly?
            what ****ing claim have you ever debunked?

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              So, when did fans chant either "Mitch! Mitch! Mitch!" or "Mitch sucks! Mitch sucks! Mitch sucks!" in unison at any point in his hallowed career?
              I agree. Bill Laimbeer should have been a 1st ballot hall of famer. That is where you were going with this, right?

              At what point was Mitch considered the undisputed leader of the franchise he played for while the franchise was considered a contender in the league? At what point did Mitch not only receive the full attention of opposing defenses, but all but begged for it both on the court and in the media, again to help his teammates as much as giving himself additional energy to feed off of?

              Yes, Mitch Richmond was a very good player. To equate him with Reggie, well, I guess I will simply disagree.
              Mitch Richmond was a better player than Reggie Miller. Anybody who watched them both play would agree. Even Mark Boyle agrees. I'm not saying Mitch has a better resume, but that's mostly due to him being tuck on teams that made the Pacers look like the 96 Bulls. I'd take Mitch over any SG from his era not named Jordan or Drexler.

              K-stat, a non-rhetorical OT question for you, though. Who amongst the last Pistons squad that won the championship, if any, do you believe has any chance whatsoever to make the hall? Ben? Rasheed? Chauncey?
              Ben Wallace. As I said, he's a big long shot.
              Personally, I rate Ben almost as much a candidate for the hall as the Worm, who is currently on the final ballot, and yet I don't think he should make it, or even be considered for several reasons, not the least of which was his role as an instigator of and escalator of the brawl.
              I don't comment on 11/19 here. Outside of that, Rodman has a better resume then Wallace, and until he gets in, I don't think Ben even has a remote chance.
              Second, I think Chauncey is overall a better guard than Mark Jackson ever was due to his ability to add to the defense while still running the offense. Jackson is also on this ballot for consideration. I don't believe Jackson will probably make the hall, and I question whether Chauncey will now even though I believe he may be worthy of it.
              I agree Chauncey is a little better than Mark, but neither of them should ever get past initial consideration.


              Third, Rasheed was a significant catalyst for the Pistons winning the championship due to his contributions on both ends of the floor and his fiery personality lead to a greater intensity of any team he ever played for. In his own right, Rasheed is likely as good a canddate as Mullin for the hall in my view despite Mullin having much better scoring and a higher profile due to being the primary player for Golden State (and I really liked his end of career contributions for the Pacers as well despite his lack of athleticism at that point).
              Sheed never brought his best every night like he should have. He didn't produce anything close to what he should have. He shouldn't even be recognized for consideration. He made that choice himself.
              Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 05:04 PM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                chris mullin never did **** for his teams. he never led them anywhere. and when he did come to the pacers as a 34 year old, it was 32yo reggie miller leading the pacers during the season and in the playoffs. for instance, 34yo chris mullin averaged 9ppg in the playoffs. 34yo reggie miller averaged 24ppg while leading the pacers to the finals. reggie miller is a top 5 player in nba history in offensive efficiency. it is only because he was a deferred scorer and played in an era of half court slowly paced offenses that he didn't average 25-30ppg. reggie's offensive efficiency was superior to jordan, west, kobe, drexler, and every other big name shooting guard you want to name in nba history who was the leader of their basketball teams.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                  Mullin never had teams to lead. I'm not even saying i think he's a sure fire hall of famer. You're arguing with yourself.

                  Reggie's offensive efficiency is a nice stat. It's not something to hang your hat on. He was a shooting specialist that normally came off of 2-3 screens wide open. He rarely created any offense on his own. He took more wide open shots in a week than Jordan did in a season. Credit to him for being able to use screens as well as he did, but teams did not focus on him defensively as much as they did guys like Jordan or Drexler.

                  I'm not taking away from what he did, which he was the best at. But to claim he's more efficient than Jordan or Jerry West...that's just ranting out or frustration.

                  Calling Reggie a "deferred scorer" is another way of saying Reggie didn't or couldn't force the action when a good shot didn't present itself. It's not like Reggie was ever racking up assists. The guy simply wasn't a 1-on-1 player. That didn't make him unselfish, it made him limited.

                  Have you ever seen Reggie pass up an open shot? Me either.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 05:20 PM.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Mullin never had teams to lead. I'm not even saying i think he's a sure fire hall of famer. You're arguing with yourself.
                    name me one team to win a championship with someone the caliber of rik smits or jalen rose as the teams 2nd best player. and yet reggie made these teams a contender year in year out for nearly 20 years against the likes of shaq, ewing, jordan, kobe, even a guy like ray allen who doesn't even hold a candle to reggie as far as leadership is concerned.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                      The 2004 Pistons didn't even have a player or Reggie's caliber. Their entire roster was stocked with guys on the talent level of Smits and Rose.

                      Also ironic that you bring up Ewing, yet Ewing's 2nd best player was John Starks..the guy Reggie ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

                      Also, The Pacers with Reggie were contenders for 6-7 years, not twenty. That's 1/3 of his career. Again, you're ranting out of anger, and you're exaggerating.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 05:16 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        The 2004 Pistons didn't even have a player or Reggie's caliber. Their entire roster was stocked with guys on the talent level of Smits and Rose.
                        and that's the only team since the 70s to do so
                        Last edited by croz24; 02-18-2011, 05:18 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                          you asked for a team, I gave you one. Now you're asking for two teams?

                          and that's the only team since the 70s that has ever done anything without at least 2 hall of fame caliber players
                          I believe 1994 came after the 70's. The 2nd best player on the Rockets was what, Otis Thorpe?

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            you asked for a team, I gave you one. Now you're asking for two teams?



                            I believe 1994 came after the 70's. The 2nd best player on the Rockets was what, Otis Thorpe?
                            otis thorpe was an all-star caliber player. vernon maxwell, kenny smith, sam cassell, robert horry, mario ellie, let's not act like that team wasn't loaded. and also, hakeem in my books, is the best center to ever play the game. and then the following season when they won, they had picked up drexler. not sure which 94 team you were referring to. i'm assuming 93-94.

                            i also fully believe that had the pacers knocked off the knicks in 93-94, we would have won that title. when your best player is a center (knicks) and you go up against a team with hakeem, very unlikely you come out on top.
                            Last edited by croz24; 02-18-2011, 05:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                              otis thorpe was an all-star caliber player. vernon maxwell, kenny smith, sam cassell, robert horry, mario ellie, let's not act like that team wasn't loaded.

                              Otis thorpe was an all star. So was Rik Smits. So was Jalen Rose. So was Mark Jackson. So Was Dale Davis. So was Antonio Davis. The 1998 Pacers featured SEVEN current, past or future NBA all-stars. The 1994 Rockets had three. And you call the 1994 Rockets "loaded?"

                              Are you finished?

                              i also fully believe that had the pacers knocked off the knicks in 93-94, we would have won that title. when your best player is a center (knicks) and you go up against a team with hakeem, very unlikely you come out on top.
                              Wait, this is the same Rockets team you just said was "loaded," right?

                              That's the great thing about what-ifs. Nobody can prove you wrong. Of course, nobody can prove you right, either.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 05:54 PM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                                To not make it in the Hall is one thing, to not even be a finalist to be considered in the Hall is another thing. Shows what a piece of **** the HoF is for basketball.

                                He's a questionable hall of famer, but should at least be in the final ballot. As said before the whole first time thing is lame and idiotic.
                                "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                                ----------------- Reggie Miller

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X