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

Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

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

  • Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...tTopCarousel_1

    Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

    Here's the good news for the NBA's three first-time head coaches this season: There's very little chance you're going to make your players worse.

    Here's the bad news: Chances are slim that you'll make them any better.

    In a league where coaching turnover is rampant—almost eight changes per season over the past two decades—a study co-written by Southern Utah University economics professor Dave Berri suggests that fewer than a quarter of NBA coaches between 1977 and 2008 had any significant effect on their players' performance.

    Mr. Berri looked at 62 coaches in the three-decade span, only including those who worked long enough to have 15 everyday players come to their team after their arrival, as well as 15 everyday players leave (this was to make sure each coach had a sizable roster of players to analyze). Mr. Berri used his wins-produced metric—which shows how many wins a player is worth by seeing how his statistics correlate to winning—to measure the players' performances and see whether they significantly improved or declined. If they did, then the coach passed the so-called effectiveness test.

    Phil Jackson, who has won a record 11 titles, is worth 17.1 wins to his teams per year according to this metric—the most in the sample. But Hall of Famer Pat Riley had no significant effect at all; neither did well-known coaches such as Jeff Van Gundy and Jerry Sloan. Then there's Matt Guokas, who compiled a .430 winning percentage in seven years as head coach. He's the only person in this sample to make his players significantly worse.
    —David Biderman

    The Ones Who Matter

    A recent study shows the majority of experienced NBA coaches in the past few decades had no significant effect on their players' performance. Here are some of the well-known exceptions. *
    MOST EFFECTIVE COACHES HOW MANY 'WINS' THEY CONTRIBUTE A SEASON
    Phil Jackson
    17.1
    Gregg Popovich
    15.9
    Cotton Fitzsimmons
    15.8
    Jim O'Brien
    12
    Gene Shue
    11.5
    Don Nelson
    11.2
    Flip Saunders
    10.7
    Last edited by MagicRat; 11-04-2010, 09:02 AM.
    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

  • #2
    Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

    Personally, I question how they calculated that data. Does Phil Jackson add 17 wins a year to his team? Or is it just good timing that he went and coached a young Michael Jordan through the peak of his career, and then Kobe Bryant? There's really no way to account for roster changes like that. Then again, what if Phil developed those two into what they became, and without Phil they would have been perennial All-Stars but never champions?

    Conversely, I think it's short sighted to suggest that they can't impact a game very much. They definitely don't have the degree of influence that an NFL head coach would have, but things like rotations and preparation have to be accounted for. Certainly if a coach came in and played his deep bench 48 minutes, he'd be responsible for a massive reduction in wins. The thing is, most coaches come into a situation where the roster isn't totally overhauled, so the things they can do to add wins to the total become much more diminished because they're using a very similar recipe to what the last guy did in terms of playing time and (likely) practice.

    I think a good coach can probably squeeze out ten more wins from a team, with all things being held equal. But a bad coach can definitely hurt his team a lot more than a good coach can help, especially if said bad coach plays his potentially All-Star center less than 30 minutes and insists on using bad veterans over younger, more athletic players.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

      Hmmmm. So based on this, with JOB we won 32 games last year, but with Riley, Sloan, or JVG we only wouldve won 20?

      Sorry. Aint buying it.
      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

        The author apparently mis-sourced this study. He should have said it was co-written by Dave Barry, humor columnist for the Miami Herald.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

          As long as they are in charge of who plays and when they play, they have a profound impact.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

            NBA coaches don't really matter. An elite guy like Phil Jackson might add a couple of wins. However most guys are just babysitters. The players determine the outcomes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

              Well jee-wizz.... I was wondering what our problem was.

              All we had to do then was to bring in someone like Isaiah Thomas to coach last season and we could have had one of the top 3-4 picks for certain.

              Bummer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                I don't believe coaches are capable of directly contributing to the number of wins per season that is attributed to these coaches... at least not during any one season.

                I do believe that the greatest contribution that can be made by a coach is in a total culture change of a team's personnel. For example, prior to Larry Brown coming to the Pacers, we were not a very successful defensive team.

                Brown changed that. He took the team's emerging star and over time transformed him from a player that did not expend much energy at all on defense to a pretty good defensive player. If you get buy-in from your star player, then it is a given that you will eventually get buy-in from the other players as well. From that point on, that particular team put just as much emphasis on defense as it did on offense. Had that never happened, then the Pacers probably would not have ultimately gone to the finals, even though they were with a different coach by then.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                  Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                  NBA coaches don't really matter. An elite guy like Phil Jackson might add a couple of wins. However most guys are just babysitters. The players determine the outcomes.
                  ...who decides who plays and who doesn't?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                    Jim O'Brien
                    12
                    Gene Shue
                    11.5
                    Don Nelson
                    11.2
                    Flip Saunders
                    10.7


                    My God what a rogues gallery of coaching.

                    Honestly if you just showed me a list of the above coach's without the context of the article I would have thought you were showing me a list of the worst coach's to have any tenure in the league of all time.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                      Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                      ...who decides who plays and who doesn't?
                      JOB should not that is the reason i hate him

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                        One coach that impacts a team Scott Skiles.

                        He works his players hard and helps improve them. He also plays an all around system that suits all of the role players.

                        If Skiles was our coach, I think Darren would benefit the most.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                          ...who decides who plays and who doesn't?
                          JOB directly, with likely some prodding from the Front Office. But it's not like JOB has Dr. J buried on this Pacers bench. The guys who should play are the guys playing 30+ minutes per night.

                          JOB/2009-2010 Pacers actually performed within a game of their pythag numbers from last year according to Basketball reference.

                          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2010/splits/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                            I think people forget what makes certain coaches " elite " is the ability to teach during practice and teach during games. Guys like Phil Jackson and Jerry Sloan are those types of coaches. Coaches are significant to their teams consistency not only on a game to game basis but during a single game .. Anyone who thinks coaches dont matter is.. well.. crazy IMO.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?

                              Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                              JOB directly, with likely some prodding from the Front Office. But it's not like JOB has Dr. J buried on this Pacers bench. The guys who should play are the guys playing 30+ minutes per night.

                              JOB/2009-2010 Pacers actually performed within a game of their pythag numbers from last year according to Basketball reference.

                              http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2010/splits/
                              That has most definitely not been the case in year's past, and I would venture to say similar problems are already (are you alive AJ Price?) occurring this year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X