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

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

    Originally posted by Professor S View Post
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...lloffame021711

    Can't post the whole article from my phone but this is beyond disappointing.
    Ralph Sampson and Rodman in before Reggie? Really????

    Comment


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

      seriously though, if ppg, rpg, or apg were the measurement of all of fame or how good a player was, then guys like danny granger, monta ellis, vince carter, allen iverson, tracy mcgrady are all better than reggie. and if reggie put up just 17fga for his career he would have averaged 25ppg for his career based on his career pps of 1.44 (jordans was 1.37). fact is, him attempting that many shots would have likely hurt the team in the long run, and reggie wasn't a selfish player. but when his team needed him most, when did he ever bail? when the pacers needed reggie to score, seriously, who in the nba other than jordan during that time did it better? people say reggie couldn't create. how often did reggie fail to get up that last shot? and most of the time that last shot was a clean look. because reggie did create for himself. unlike most big scorers however, reggie did it within the confines of TEAM BASKETBALL.

      Comment


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

        This was Reggie's 1st try and Rodman's 6th. Apples to oranges.

        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


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

          I'm not surprised. In fact, I actually don't care if he gets in at all...because I know where he stands.

          Reggie was borderline HOF all along. I consider him close to a Patrick Ewing level player...and if he played for the Knicks that might have been enough. Ray Allen is not much different. None of these guys were ever top 5 in the league when they played....so they're all border line in terms of first ballot.

          I suspect because of Miller's theatrics, he would have been more likely to make the HOF than Allen...even if Allen was actually a bit better player. But not now. Not now that Ray has won it all and played for the Celtics. It's likely that Garnett, Pierce and Allen all go first ballot...at least moreso than Miller...particularly since Ray also holds the 3 pt record now.

          As for Mitch Richmond, he's right there too. I've seen Mitch play live and even saw him live in Michigan take apart the Purdue Boilermakers in the 1988 NCAA's. However, his game was not tested much at all in the NBA playoffs. There's a reason 'nique didn't go first either...and it's not because he wasn't a spectacular player. It's because he played on bad teams and didn't have his skills tested enough. Same with Mitch. ...but while 'nique was clearly a more talented basketball player than Reggie Miller, not so with Richmond. He simply never played enough basketball in the playoffs to prove it. He also didn't face as tough of competition throughout the regular season because teams didn't need to give their best shot against his cellar dwelling teams. I'm sure some teams took the night off and let him roll up numbers. In contrast, they had to work their tails off to beat the Pacers and Reggie Miller was the #1 weapon to stop.

          You know how it is playing against the contenders. Teams are giving their best shot to beat them. Same with the Pacers in the 90's. Not so with the cellar dwellers. As a result, it's far easier to get open shots and numbers.

          As for Reggie Miller, he deferred to a fault during the regular season....and while most players' numbers dropped, Miller's numbers rose in the playoffs and provide a better picture of his talent level. BTW, if Miller chucked like Granger on a sub .500 team, he'd probably average 30ppg....

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

            As for Reggie Miller, he deferred to a fault during the regular season....and while most players' numbers dropped, Miller's numbers rose in the playoffs and provide a better picture of his talent level. BTW, if Miller chucked like Granger on a sub .500 team, he'd probably average 30ppg....
            This.. He could have easily had MUCH better numbers had he not deferred in the regular season.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              seriously though, if ppg, rpg, or apg were the measurement of all of fame or how good a player was, then guys like danny granger, monta ellis, vince carter, allen iverson, tracy mcgrady are all better than reggie.
              Allen Iverson and TMac were both better than Reggie. You can hate them for various reasons, but that fact remains. Outside of that, you're talking nonsense.

              and if reggie put up just 17fga for his career he would have averaged 25ppg for his career based on his career pps of 1.44 (jordans was 1.37). fact is, him attempting that many shots would have likely hurt the team in the long run, and reggie wasn't a selfish player.
              ...and ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

              comparing Reggie to Jordan simply isn't a good way to get yourself to be taken seriously.

              Reggie wasn't a good 1-on-1 player. He didn't take more shots because he couldn't and score at the same clip, not because he chose not to out of unselfishness. If he shot more, could he have averaged more points? Absolutely, but he wouldnt have shot the ball at nearly the same efficiency clip you're clinging on to.

              people say reggie couldn't create. how often did reggie fail to get up that last shot?
              Reggie was a master at using screens. He might have been the best ever at it. Those were plays drawn up out of timeouts, not Reggie making something out of nothing.
              Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 07:47 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


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

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Allen Iverson and TMac were both better than Reggie. You can hate them for various reasons, but that fact remains.



                ...and ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

                comparing Reggie to Jordan simply isn't a good way to get yourself to be taken seriously.

                Reggie wasn't a good 1-on-1 player. He didn't take more shots because he couldn't and score at the same clip, not because he chose not to out of unselfishness.


                Reggie was a master at using screens. He might have been the best ever at it. Those were plays drawn up out of timeouts, not Reggie making somethign out of nothing.
                sorry but movement without the basketball is indeed a skill set. jordan and kobe have both been quoted as stating nobody was tougher for them to guard. and you are out of your ****ing mind if you think iverson and mcgrady are better than reggie. neither have half the amout of team accomplishments as reggie in being leaders of their franchises. reggie wasn't the me first player those two were which is why his teams were vastly superior. sounds like you are one to reward players who only care about themselves. you can use ifs with reggie because he wasn't just some steve kerr 6fga per game role player. reggie was the leader. and as the leader he played within the team concept which is something rarely seen by top notch scorers in this league.

                Comment


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

                  Indeed, moving without the ball a skill set. Just like being able to score over double and triple teams is a skill set. Just like the ability to tie your shoes is a skill set.

                  All of these things are held in various forms of regard among basketball circles, though all three are pretty important.

                  For instance, a guy winning two scoring titles carrying the 4th-best playoff scoring average of all time, or an MVP with four scoring titles that carried Eric Snow, George Lynch and Tyrone Hill on his back to the NBA finals just might be considered better players than Reggie and his uber-impressive shooting percentages.

                  You are indeed correct that all of those guys were super-selfish, whereas Reggie was feeding the poor and attending church during timeouts as he wrote the book on how to be an unselfish player with his piles of assists.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 08:08 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


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

                    My general thoughts:

                    I realize that it is what it is with regards to Reggie being or not being in, the HOF selection process, and also some of the oddities with regards to who else is or isn't in this thing.

                    I just think there's a lot of things wrong with it, and i disagree with the concept that it's okay because that is the established precedent. If it was wrong before when it comes to previous players/coaches, it's still wrong now.

                    I can accept the reality of the situation, but i don't give it a pass for sometimes being IMO stupid.

                    I also think that the concept of not letting this guy or that guy in right away in the name of making some other guy look more special is simple minded. Give the elite special recognition if you want to, but trying to do it by delaying someone else's entry is foolish.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      Reggie wasn't a good 1-on-1 player. He didn't take more shots because he couldn't and score at the same clip, not because he chose not to out of unselfishness. If he shot more, could he have average more points? Absolutely, but he wouldnt have shot the ball at nearly the same efficiency clip you're clinging on to.
                      Miller was not a 1-on-1 player, but I think his playoff statistics disprove this theory. His eFG% did drop about 3% but his PPG increased about 15%. It's not reasonable for anyone to retain the same efficiency rating while scoring more points. The fact his efficiency didn't drop much...even with MUCH more competitive games should tell us all something. The dude deferred to win lots of regular season games. Lots of players do it....and that's called unselfishness. Again, to a fault Miller deferred...particularly as he got older.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        ...I never said he deserved to be one in 5-10 years. I predicted it would take him that long, if ever. I don't think he's deserving. Petrovic was a reactionary decision based on his death, though he had a shot based on his career trajectory.
                        As I said, the waiting is redundant. Purely procedural thing, no value to the main topic - who deserves it the most from this year's class. Seems we both agree.
                        As for Sabonis, it depends on how heavily international career is valued. From the pov of history of the game overall, to me, he's an unquestionable 'in'. I understand why NBA purists would disagree. I hope the HOF panel has more of a consensus on criteria.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by ballism View Post
                          As I said, the waiting is redundant. Purely procedural thing, no value to the main topic - who deserves it the most from this year's class. Seems we both agree.
                          As for Sabonis, it depends on how heavily international career is valued. From the pov of history of the game overall, to me, he's an unquestionable 'in'. I understand why NBA purists would disagree. I hope the HOF panel has more of a consensus on criteria.
                          If it's the NBA HOF, I would say Sabonis is out. He was a shell of his former self by the time he entered the NBA.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Miller was not a 1-on-1 player, but I think his playoff statistics disprove this theory. His eFG% did drop about 3% but his PPG increased about 15%. It's not reasonable for anyone to retain the same efficiency rating while scoring more points. The fact his efficiency didn't drop much...even with MUCH more competitive games should tell us all something. The dude deferred to win lots of regular season games. Lots of players do it....and that's called unselfishness. Again, to a fault Miller deferred...particularly as he got older.
                            He went from the 97th best regular season scorer in NBA history to the 43rd best playoff scorer. Playing more minutes was a big part. His numbers went up in the playoffs, but it's not as if he came out of a phone booth with tights and a cape and set the league on fire.

                            I'm not saying Reggie was a selfish guy, or didn't value winning. But his unselfishnes is way overblown. The best I can say about him on that issue is he was always willing to rest more often during the regular season to be ready for the playoffs. His style of play didn't change a ton.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 08:05 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


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

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              If it's the NBA HOF, I would say Sabonis is out. He was a shell of his former self by the time he entered the NBA.
                              Of course.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Indeed, moving without the ball a skill set. Just like being able to score over double and triple teams is a skill set. Just like the ability to tie your shoes is a skill set.

                                All of these things are held in various forms of regard among basketball circles, though all three are pretty important.

                                For instance, a guy winning 3 scoring titles carrying the 4th-best playoff scoring average of all time, or an MVP that carried Eric Snow, George Lynch and Tyrone Hill on his back to the NBA finals just might be considered better players than Reggie and his uber-impressive shooting percentages.
                                and that was arguably the worst year of all time for a conference. sorry but scoring titles mean nothing to me when the player shoots at the % iverson did, at the rate he did, and when he did. iverson needed 25fga just to get 25points half the time. the team concept meant nothing to iverson. i think the fact that such a "great" player in iverson only made it out of the 2nd round once in his career shows just how great a leader he truly was in comparison to reggie. meanwhile, reggie was consistently leading his teams to ecfs in a much tougher league compared to when iverson played. i think it's evident now, kstat rewards selfishness. the only consistency about iverson's game is that his teams either failed to make the playoffs or he was consistently ousted in rounds 1 or 2.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X