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

Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

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

  • #46
    Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    An argument could be made that AI was better. But I place a much higher value in being a team player. AI was very talented, but did not listen to his coaches. He could have been one of the all time greats. Iverson only had one season of team ball, and they made the finals. Then he stopped listening to his coaches
    Being a team player is nice and all, but Iverson is one of the best scorers to ever play the game. He was the only player worth mentioning on those 76ers teams, yet he had them competing and took them to the finals. The dude averaged 35ppg in the Finals. Thats absolutely incredible.

    I love Reggie. He was great. But Reggie's biggest thing was how many big shots he hit. He was clutch. Thats what got Reggie into the HOF. He is one of the most clutch players of all time. But he was not a better basketball player than AI. 26.7ppg, 6.2apg, 3.7rpg (more than reggie despite being a whopping 6 feet tall) for his career. And he gave us this


    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

      Iverson will always be incredibly difficult to place in history. The irony is his numbers actually don't do him justice. He was a a far more dominant player than his shooting numbers indicate.

      FYI: Iverson made seven all-nba teams. Three 1st, Three 2nd, one 3rd. In all three of his 1st team seasons, Kobe Bryant was 2nd or 3rd team.

      You know who else made seven? Nique, Nash, Ewing, Pippen, Greer and Dr. J.
      Last edited by Kstat; 04-04-2014, 03:45 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


      • #48
        Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

        Slow year for the Hall of Fame I guess...
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Hmm...how many all nba teams did Mark Jackson make again?

          Are we just going to throw out random players and pretend they're comparable to Mitch Richmond?
          Karl Malone and Dirk Nowitzki were picked on more all NBA teams than Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I'm not sure what that means, but it sure doesn't indicate who is the best NBA player.

          IMO, it's really more of a popularity contest of some kind and if you are a humble guy like Mitch Richmond you are going to be well liked. That is really what I recall about him.

          As for Mark Jackson, no he's not a HOF'er. I get that Mitch Richmond makes the grade but I don't think he's as good of a player as Reggie Miller or Joe Dumars.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

            Kevin Love is well on his way to a HOF career I guess. Zero playoff appearances, but he has great stats and already has one All-NBA second team on his resume. I'm sure he'll add more All-NBA honors this year.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Kevin Love is well on his way to a HOF career I guess. Zero playoff appearances, but he has great stats and already has one All-NBA second team on his resume. I'm sure he'll add more All-NBA honors this year.
              Hate to break this to you, but at only 25 yes Kevin Love is on track to the hall of fame. He could crack double digits at his pace.

              He's obviously the most productive power forward of his era. Put him on a team that isn't terrible and he's an MVP candidate.
              Last edited by Kstat; 04-04-2014, 08:57 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


              • #52
                Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Karl Malone and Dirk Nowitzki were picked on more all NBA teams than Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I'm not sure what that means, but it sure doesn't indicate who is the best NBA player.

                IMO, it's really more of a popularity contest of some kind and if you are a humble guy like Mitch Richmond you are going to be well liked. That is really what I recall about him.

                As for Mark Jackson, no he's not a HOF'er. I get that Mitch Richmond makes the grade but I don't think he's as good of a player as Reggie Miller or Joe Dumars.
                This is a silly strawman argument. Of course Dirk and Malone has more All-NBAs. THEY PLAYED LONGER. Reggie played 18 seasons. What's his excuse?

                And spare me the "overrated because he was humble" argument. At what point in nba history has that ever been valid?

                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


                • #53
                  Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Hate to break this to you, but at only 25 yes Kevin Love is on track to the hall of fame. He could crack double digits at his pace.

                  He's obviously the most productive power forward of his era. Put him on a team that isn't terrible and he's an MVP candidate.
                  Put Evan Turner on a team that isn't terrible...um...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                    Not really interested with the Richmond argument going forward because no one participating in this thread will likely change their mind. What has been interesting to me in the thread has been the general theme that Reggie was a dramatically different player during the playoffs vs. his sometimes less than outstanding regular season play. Every time I see this topic come up I get the feeling that many on PD are of the opinion that Reggie frequently moved the quality of his game up to a 1st team NBA level and managed to keep it there over very long stretches of the post season.

                    Truth is I never saw Reggie as having been consistently dominant or consistently special in the playoffs. He was consistently very good with IMO moments of greatness. The knack for the dramatic coupled with the longevity of his relevance is what really moved the man into legendary status. Being a lazy Saturday with 10" of slow melting snow here in MN why not take the time to dig a little deeper.

                    Before I get labeled a Reggie hater I do feel Miller was a slam dunk Hall of Famer. IMO he is the greatest Pacer of the NBA era and also one of the 3 most exciting prime time/playoff performers of his era. I enjoyed every single minute of his Pacer career.

                    THE STATS

                    Reggie's regular season numbers 18.2 PPG 3.0 RPG 3.0 APG .471 FG% .395 3FG% 12.6 FGA/Game
                    Reggie's post season numbers 20.6 PPG 2.9 RPG 2.5 APG .449 FG% .390 3FG% 14.5 FGA/Game

                    The major difference in Reggie's stats is an additional 2.4 PPG and an additional 1.9 FGA's per game. The other stats are a wash or as could be expected against better playoff competion slightly down. In short the big difference was that Reggie was more aggressive offensively in the playoffs. Some (including Larry Brown) actually saw this as a shortcoming as much as a positive attribute.

                    ELIMINATION GAMES

                    One area where Reggie generally shined in the playoffs was elimination games.

                    Reggie's career elimination game stats 22.6 PPG 3.3 RPG 2.6 APG .469 FG% .394 3FG% 15.8 FGA/Game

                    Miller was especially good in elimination games during the 2000 playoff run. IMO the 2000 playoff run is the best extended example of Reggie's playoff greatness.

                    2000 Elimination Game Stats 25.9 PPG 3.3 RPG 2.7 APG .531 FG% .422 3FG% 16.1 FGA/Game

                    Unfortunately for Pacer fans Reggie was not always at his best in ECF elimination games during the seasons of 1994, 1995, 1998 & 1999.

                    94 thu 99 ECF Elimination Game Stats 19.7 PPG 2.7 RPG 2.0 APG .395 FG% .380 3FG% 16.2 FGA/Game

                    COMPARISONS TO A COUPLE OTHER GREATS WHO ALSO CAME UP SHORT

                    Patrick Ewing & Charles Barkley

                    Patrick's regular season numbers 21.0 PPG 9.8 RPG 1.9 APG .504 FG% .152 3FG% 16.3 FGA/Game
                    Patrick's post season numbers 20.2 PPG 10.3 RPG 2.0 APG .469 FG% .348 3FG% 16.9 FGA/Game

                    Charles' regular season numbers 22.1 PPG 11.7 RPG 3.9 APG .540 FG% .266 3FG% 14.5 FGA/Game
                    Charles' post season numbers 23.0 PPG 12.9 RPG 3.9 APG .513 FG% .255 3FG% 16 FGA/Game

                    Miller's Playoff win% = .528
                    Ewing's Playoff win % = .516
                    Barkley's Playoff win % = .500

                    *I excluded the 4-games Miller missed against the Hawks in 1996

                    Miller = 1 Finals Appearance, 6 Conference Finals & 15 total playoff appearances
                    Ewing = 2 Finals Appearances, 4 Conference Finals, 14 total playoff appearances
                    Barkley = 1 Finals Appearance, 3 Conference Finals, 13 total playoff appearances

                    Miller = 8 first round exits in 15 playoff appearances
                    Ewing = 3 first round exits in 14 playoff appearances
                    Barkley = 5 first round exits in 13 playoff appearances

                    What I get from the above is that Miller might have had a marginally better playoff career than Ewing or Barkley. Mostly when you weight it from a team success standpoint. What I also get is that in terms of post season success Miller is clearly a very good 2nd tier perfomer. Clearly behind the likes of Jordon, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Pippen and probably Stockton & Malone who all significantly overlapped his era.

                    To me it really is the iconic & dramatic playoff moments scattered out through a long career that matter most when defining Miller's place in history. 8 points in 9 seconds, 25 point 4th quarter against the Knicks, clutch 3's on a gimpy ankle against the Bulls, Superman against the Buck's etc. etc. That is why behind Jordan & Hakeem I think Miller may be the 3rd most exciting playoff performer of his era. Having said that Miller would probably still have trouble being named a top ten post season player of that very same era.
                    Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 04-05-2014, 02:38 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Put Evan Turner on a team that isn't terrible...um...
                      FWIW Evan Turner's numbers, even on a bad team with no other real options (76ers), weren't very impressive at all. His PER was below average and his FG% was unimpressive.

                      Really, being a 17 ppg scorer as a the best option and highest usage player on a bad team really does nothing to distinguish himself from anyone. He wasn't fooling anyone.

                      I mean, there's a reason this guy was basically had for nothing and the 76ers didn't even extend this guy an offer to begin the season, despite being young enough to be part of someone's rebuilding plans. I know the whole tanking argument, but the fact that they couldn't even get a late 1st/2nd round pick for him says a lot.

                      Good pickup by the Pacers to basically add some depth and get him for nothing, but this guy was just never very good. Not even his stats suggested otherwise.
                      Last edited by d_c; 04-05-2014, 02:55 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Hate to break this to you, but at only 25 yes Kevin Love is on track to the hall of fame. He could crack double digits at his pace.

                        He's obviously the most productive power forward of his era. Put him on a team that isn't terrible and he's an MVP candidate.
                        Yep.

                        You have to remember we're talking about a franchise that nearly ruined Kevin Garnett's career. And they would've ruined it had it not been for that trade to Boston. They had KG for, what, 12 years and only got past the 1st round of the playoffs with him once. Had KG not been dealt, you could theoretically make an argument in this thread about how he doesn't deserve HOF consideration because he never came close to winning anything. (FWIW, As a franchise, the Wolves have never made the playoffs at all without Kevin Garnett)

                        And this is Kevin Garnet, one of the best and most versatile 2 way PFs to ever play the game. Not even he could lift that franchise out of relative mediocrity.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                          Reggie Miller was never a top tier player like Jordan, Bird or Magic. He was a 2nd tier player who could have had much better regular season stats if that was his goal. But he deferred...really to a fault.

                          Keep an open mind and look at this math:

                          Miller averaged 12.6 FGA vs Mitch Richmond who averaged 16.4. Mitch, with a shorter career playing more of it in his prime averaged 21ppg on a bad team over 13 years. Reggie, played until he was 39 which significantly reduced his PPG stat yet if you adjust it assuming he also shot 16.4 times a game averaged 23.7ppg on a very good team for a long, long time...playing against teams that were usually up for the Pacers. He did all of this while shooting for a higher percentage from the floor, from three and from the free throw stripe.

                          I understand Mitch Richmond was a good player. But players on bad teams that move to good ones almost always see their numbers drop. Chris Bosh is a great example. There are numerous examples, too many to mention.

                          Then you look at the post season and the numbers are even more in Reggie Miller's favor as his production went up and Mitch Richmond's went down. Give Mitch props for being a better defender but he was not as good offensively and it wasn't that close.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                            Originally posted by d_c View Post
                            FWIW Evan Turner's numbers, even on a bad team with no other real options (76ers), weren't very impressive at all. His PER was below average and his FG% was unimpressive.

                            Really, being a 17 ppg scorer as a the best option and highest usage player on a bad team really does nothing to distinguish himself from anyone. He wasn't fooling anyone.

                            I mean, there's a reason this guy was basically had for nothing and the 76ers didn't even extend this guy an offer to begin the season, despite being young enough to be part of someone's rebuilding plans. I know the whole tanking argument, but the fact that they couldn't even get a late 1st/2nd round pick for him says a lot.

                            Good pickup by the Pacers to basically add some depth and get him for nothing, but this guy was just never very good. Not even his stats suggested otherwise.
                            I agree he is not very good, but his FG% dropped from .428 playing against starters to .392 playing against backups. He fits the pattern just as DJ Augustin, Gerald Green, Miles Plumee and many others fit it. When a player moves to a good team, his numbers drop. When they move to a bad one, they go up. That may not always be the case, but it is the norm. If Mitch Richmond played on a contender, his numbers would follow Bosh's path. Down.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                              A Mitch Richmond vs Reggie Miller heated discussion. What year is this again?
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond reported elected to Hall of Fame

                                http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...of-fame-class/

                                David Stern, Alonzo Mourning, Mitch Richmond head 2014 Naismith Hall of Fame class

                                What had been rumored for nearly a week became official on Monday:

                                Alonzo Mourning and Mitch Richmond have been elected to the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. The Hall’s selection committee made the formal announcement on Monday. They will join former NBA Commissioner David Stern, who had already been announced as directly elected to the Hall for his contributions to the game.

                                Tim Hardaway, Spencer Haywood and Kevin Johnson did not make the cut. Ugh.

                                Mourning was a seven-time All-Star and an NBA champion (2006 Heat) who held his own at both ends of the floor against some legendary centers of his era — Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing and Shaquille O’Neal. He was particularly known for his defense, twice being named NBA Defensive Player of the Year, also twice he finished in the top three in MVP voting. Mourning played 15 NBA seasons (11 in Miami) averaging 17 points, 8.5 rebounds and 2.6 blocks per game. Also remember he was an All-American at Georgetown.

                                Richmond was a shooter ahead of his time — in an era when the three ball was not as prevalent he was a sniper from deep. He also could put it on the floor and get to the rim, which is why he averaged 21 points a game or more for 10 consecutive seasons. He was part of the Warriors’ “Run TMC” years with Chris Mullin (already in the Hall of Fame) and Hardaway (who should be). Richmond went on to be a six-time NBA All-Star, won an NBA title (2002 Lakers) and an Olympic Gold Medal (1996).

                                Both of those guys are deserving. So is Hardaway, but that just leads to another discussion of why there needs to be a separate NBA Hall of Fame.

                                David Stern should be in any Hall — while he was a lightning rod of controversy he also left an indelible imprint on the NBA in his 30 years as commissioner. Stern understood marketing and was able to help sell the brands of Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and others to raise the NBA’s status (and profits for team owners) to new heights. Putting him in the Hall was a given.

                                Others elected or directly voted in are:

                                Nolan Richardson. The famed “40 minutes of hell” coach of Arkansas who led that team to three Final Four trips and the 1994 NCAA title.

                                Gary Williams. He coached Maryland for 21 seasons, leading them to 11 NCAA Tournaments and the 2002 national championship.

                                Bob Leonard. “Slick” was the winningest coach in the history of the ABA, leading the Pacers to three ABA titles.

                                Nat Clifton. One of the first African Americans to sign in the NBA, he averaged 10 points a game over an eight year NBA career.

                                Sarunas Marciulionis. The Lithuanian was the first player from the Soviet Union to play in the NBA (back then Lithuania was still part of the Soviet Union). In his seven NBA seasons, Marciulionis averaged 12.8 points and 1.3 steals per game. He also had big numbers in Europe and the European Championships.

                                Guy Rogers. He was a four time NBA All-Star in the 1960s, and he also lifted Temple to the NCAA Final Four in the 1950s.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X