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

Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

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

  • Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

    http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/06/...s-lose-a-star/

    Check out the original article for additional statical info and how those stats were derived.
    -----------------

    Did the Pacers Lose a Star?

    June 29, 2008 · 10 Comments

    Although the deal is not official, it’s been widely reported that the Indiana Pacers and Toronto Raptors completed a trade prior to the 2008 draft. The Toronto Raptors will get six-time All-Star Jermaine O’Neal. The Indiana Pacers are adding four non-stars: T.J. Ford, Rasho Nesterovic, Maceo Baston and the draft rights to Roy Hibbert.

    The general rule of thumb in the NBA is that the team that gets the All-Star in a trade is the team that comes out ahead. This rule is consistent with the idea of “Bobby Layne Rigidity”, offered by Walter Neale in a 1964 article (appearing in the Quarterly Journal of Economics and titled: “The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports”). According to Neale - as the name Bobby Layne Rigidity implies — a team cannot replace one good quarterback with two poor signal callers.

    Likewise, it’s difficult in the NBA to substitute a collection of non-stars for one star player. As noted previously in this forum, the Pareto Principle appears to hold in the NBA. In other words, roughly 80% of wins are produced by 20% of the talent. Consequently, when a team loses a major wins producer, it tends to suffer.

    Losing an Unproductive Star
    Of course there is one exception to this story. If the player in question is an “unproductive star”, then the issue of Bobby Layne Rigidity goes away. For example, the 76ers lost Allen Iverson - a “star” player who is not quite as productive as popular perception indicates - and actually improved.
    Similarly, one suspects the Pacers loss of Jermaine O’Neal should also lead to additional victories. To see this, let’s first consider the career of J. O’Neal.

    As Table One indicates, once upon a time J. O’Neal was an above average player, but not a “star”. Although NBA Efficiency still indicates he is above average, Wins Produced tells a different tale.

    This is what I said about O’Neal last January.
    When we look at O’Neal’s career we don’t see a major star. His career WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] is above average, but a mark of 0.143 (prior to the 2007-08 season) pales in comparison to the top players in the game. Still, O’Neal has generally been a good player and he did lead his team in Wins Produced for three seasons.

    What makes O’Neal “good” is his ability to get rebounds and block shots. Shooting efficiency, though, has been a consistent problem. Except for the 2002-03 season - again, his best year - O’Neal has always been below average with respect to getting his shots to go in the basket.

    And this season the inefficient scoring issue has worsened. In addition, O’Neal is now below average on the boards. As a consequence, his overall productivity is now well below the average mark.

    As noted, these were my words in January. And these were the same words I used when I noted that J. O’Neal is the most overpaid player in the game.

    With respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, and turnovers, J. O’Neal is below average. So although he’s still taking and blocking shots, his overall contribution is below par.

    The Pacers in 2007-08 and 2008-09
    Once we realize that J. O’Neal is not quite as productive as his star status suggests, this trade looks much better for Indiana. The team is losing a player whose wins production was in the negative range last season. And in return, the Pacers are getting Ford (WP48 of 0.160 last season), Nestrovic (WP48 of 0.104 last season), and Baston (WP48 of 0.161 in very limited minutes last season). Plus the Raptors gave up their first round pick in 2008 (Hibbert). Put it all together, and the Pacers look like a better team after this move.

    It’s important to remember that - despite an underperforming O’Neal - the Pacers were not a terrible team in 2007-08.

    Table Two indicates that this team’s Wins Produced (based on the team’s efficiency differential) summed to 37 wins. Had the Pacers won this many games the team would have been tied with the Hawks for the last spot in the Eastern Conference playoffs (Indiana actually finished one game back). Adding a very productive point guard and a serviceable center to this roster, while losing a player who didn’t produce any wins last year, has to help the Pacers return to the post-season.

    And we have to remember that in addition to the O’Neal trade, the Pacers also acquired Jarrett Jack (0.098 WP48 last season) in a draft day trade that also netted guard Brandon Rush. Given these moves, the Pacers will now have the following collection of above average veterans in the rotation: T. J. Ford, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, and Jeff Foster. In addition, the Pacers have three more players who are right around average (Danny Granger, Jack, and Nesterovic). If Rush and Hibbert can come in and produced positive wins (not above average, just greater than zero), the Pacers should definitely improve.

    I should note that Erich Doerr - who has done an excellent job of using Win Score to evaluate the 2008 NBA Draft - is also very positive about the moves the Pacers made around the draft.

    The best Win Score draft goes to the Indiana Pacers for picking up solid players in Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert. Both are NBA-ready and excellent Win Score prospects. Along with their trades, the Pacers are primed to pass .500 this season and are a franchise on the upswing.

    If the analysis Doerr and I offer is to be believed, the Pacers are right now strong candidates to return to the post-season in 2009. Of course we will know more when the roster of the Pacers - and every other team - is finalized. At this point, though, the evidence suggests that losing O’Neal was a good move for the Pacers.

    Does this mean that this trade is bad for the Raptors? I will try and answer that question in my next post. And that answer is not as clear as one might think.
    - DJ

  • #2
    Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

    This is a good analysis of the trade. I can only hope that this team will continue to improve and be an above .500 team.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

      Nice find maragin. Maybe we will have someone make it from the ballot this year.
      Last edited by duke dynamite; 06-30-2008, 05:59 PM. Reason: on not from

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        Nice find maragin. Maybe we will have someone make it on the ballot this year.
        We had players on the ballot last year.

        I bought the book, 'Wages of wins,' because I think they are on to something, however I didn't want to do all the math for each player so it was a waste of money.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          We had players on the ballot last year.

          I bought the book, 'Wages of wins,' because I think they are on to something, however I didn't want to do all the math for each player so it was a waste of money.
          I should have made it clearer, but I meant that someone actually make the team that was on the ballot.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

            Originally posted by maragin View Post
            ...the Pacers will now have the following collection of above average veterans in the rotation: T. J. Ford, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, and Jeff Foster. In addition, the Pacers have three more players who are right around average (Danny Granger, Jack, and Nesterovic).
            Nice article, but did he rank Murphy as above average and Granger as around average? IDK, but IMO Murphy is a below average starter and Granger is slightly above average.

            In any event, this article echoes what has been clear for a long, long time. JO is overpaid and overrated because he is inefficient on offense. OTOH, he is a good defensive player. With injuries, he is now arguably one of the most overpaid players in the NBA. ...although I suppose Tinsley is up there somewhere too. That's a lot of money to waste...
            Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              With injuries, he is now arguably one of the most overpaid players in the NBA. ...although I suppose Tinsley is up there somewhere too. That's a lot of money to waste...
              Don't worry...It's not like our new $8.5 million PG has a cogenital spine disorder or anything. That would be scary.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                Very interesting...

                I admit, while still a JO fan I began to see him more as a shot blocker and rebounder than a scorer. Even I've knocked him for his poor scoring efficiency. Still, he was the only real scoring threat this team had in the post which was one of the biggest reasons I wanted the Pacers to keep him for atleast one more season. At least now I feel alittle bit better knowing mgmt was able to make some improvements without giving up the farm. We'll see just how good the trades were for the Pacers come late December. If they're above .500 and going strong by Christmas, I'll give Larry Legand all the credit he deserves for doing a masterful job during the off-season.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                  Some of you may be glad to here, that based on Win Score, Bayless does not project to be a productive pro. And, as the article alluded to both Hibbert and Rush do project to be productive players. I'll try to find the link.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                    I hope they're right, but I wouldn't hang my hat on anything Wages of Wins comes up with.

                    WoW has a pretty significant statistical flaw in the model they use. They reward made shots and penalizes misses, which seems straightforward enough and accurate. The problem is they give full credit to the rebounder for a rebound but there is no deduction for team aspects. We see it all the time in games: a defensive rebound is a product of team defense, and when a 10 rebound a game guy is lost, his team doesn't become 10 rebounds worse. A good example of overrating rebonders is Jeff Foster, as much as I like him.

                    Per minute, Foster rated 2% more productive than Amare Stoudemire, 6% more productive than Tyson Chandler, and 28% more productive than Yao last year--all because statisically, rebonding is overrated in their analysis. WoW also made the argument that Dennis Rodman was more valuable than Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen on the latter Bulls champions. That should tell you everything you need to know about WoW.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                      Originally posted by joeshmoe View Post
                      Some of you may be glad to here, that based on Win Score, Bayless does not project to be a productive pro. And, as the article alluded to both Hibbert and Rush do project to be productive players. I'll try to find the link.
                      http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...-Preview-2932/

                      Be careful...Draft Express has a caveat:

                      Jerryd Bayless: 0.6 PAWS/40

                      Up front, some analysts will dispute Win Scores point guard ratings. Compared with other metrics, such as PER, there are distinct discrepancies in PG ratings. When looking at Win Scores ratings of PG prospects, similar disagreements appear against many prospect ranking lists. Current mock drafts have Jerryd Bayless as a consensus top 6 pick, while his collegiate .6 PAWS/40 does not stand out.

                      While Bayless is young and may improve, his turnover rates and weak rebounding suggest that he’ll likely not pan out to the all star guard many predict.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                        Thanks, that is what I was looking for.

                        ...but didn't Bayless play primarily the two?

                        After losing Bayless I prefer to highlight the next paragraph...that his turnover rates and weak rebounding suggest that he'll likely not panout to the all star guard many predict.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Nice article, but did he rank Murphy as above average and Granger as around average?
                          You're right. I think the statement is tied to the Wins per 48 minutes statistic. You probably remember that Granger's +/- was also low last season. He played more minutes than anyone else, and he was on the floor during a lot of the tough stretches against the opponent's starters.

                          Granger is our iron man, and that translates to low performance statistics on a team with a losing record. It's no bad reflection on his ability or personal performance.
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                            Also, on the site there is a graph, which adjusts the win scores according to strength of competition. Usually, a players win score goes down considerably when the strength of competition goes up. Rush's score stood out because it did not go down, and it may have gone up.

                            (I just spent ten minutes looking for the graph before giving up. The graph also says that it was pessimistic about Bayless's chances and with other prospects too. They were most optomistic of Love and Beasley. It's links from the article somewhere)

                            EDIT: found the link
                            Last edited by joeshmoe; 06-30-2008, 10:11 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Article about recent Pacers moves (Warning: Stats)

                              Originally posted by joeshmoe View Post
                              ...but didn't Bayless play primarily the two?
                              You'd think so, based on this board.

                              But no, he played PG in college.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X