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

Rush is inconsistent?

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

  • Rush is inconsistent?

    This was in Mike Wells' article yesterday:
    Second-year guard Brandon Rush has been inconsistent, but has shown potential. He's averaging 8.7 points and 4.1 rebounds. Hopes were high after he averaged 18.3 points and shot 55 percent from the field in the final 10 games last season.
    This is from a few days ago:
    Coach Jim O'Brien can't talk about the second-year swingman without looking flustered or throwing up his arms in annoyance.
    What does "inconsistent" mean? I'm asking this because, when you look at the numbers, Rush is no more inconsistent than the rest of the team. This chart shows, for each player, their season high in scoring, their low (which is zero for everybody but Granger and Price) and their average. I included only games in which the player played five minutes or more.






    This shows that every player is inconsistent. Most people are deceived by the average into thinking that the player will consistently score that number. But it ain't necessarily so.

    This next chart shows the standard deviation for scoring for each player. (Standard Deviation is the range below and above the average into which about 2/3rd of all the player's games fall.) A larger number means less consistency.





    Rush's standard deviation for scoring is in the middle. And it is worth noting that some of the players with the least deviation are those who haven't played much or who never score much at all.



    OK, so what does Wells mean by repeatedly saying Rush is "inconsistent"? My numbers show that he isn't notably inconsistent in scoring. His defense is pretty good. If he is inconsistent in defense, it is because he wavers between very good and merely good. That's not worth fussing about on a team that is not consistently good overall at defending.

    Wells has not said Rush has made an "inconsistent effort" or that he has played "an inconsistent role" on the team. He does say that Rush is unemotional, but unemotional does not mean inconsistent.

    What does all this talk mean?




    .
    Last edited by Putnam; 02-12-2010, 10:28 AM.
    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)

  • #2
    Re: Rush is inconsistent?

    I take it to mean simply - that he is inconsistantly aggressive in his play.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rush is inconsistent?

      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...highlight=rush
      I'm not perfect and neither are you.

      Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
      Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rush is inconsistent?

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I take it to mean simply - that he is inconsistantly aggressive in his offense.
        Fixed.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rush is inconsistent?

          It's interesting because, from what I've seen, when he gets the ball early in the shot clock he is much more aggressive. That's one big change I think Ive noticed since he has been playing better. He touches the ball early and looks to do something with it.
          "man, PG has been really good."

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rush is inconsistent?

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Rush is inconsistent?
            consistently so....


            I think it is better to see Rush as "Steady" in his production, but "Inconsistent" in his aggression & growth. Rush's problem is he is vanilla on a "flavorless" team. People want "Banana Fosters, Moose Tracks, & White Chocolate Raspberry", but what they do not realize is that every team, every ice cream needs is a solid base & foundation of vanilla.
            Don't get me wrong, I like flavors too, & in time I think Rush will add swirls, but I always want, & we will always need our "steady" vanilla
            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rush is inconsistent?

              sportfireman, I know there was a previous thread on this. But that thread wandered about quite a bit and most posts assumed the OP was true and went into explaining it.

              My figures show that Rush's output isn't particularly inconsistent when measured as points. (I also looked at a couple of other measures and got the same kind of middling result. His standard deviations are not remarkably large in any category.

              The topic here is whether Wells' statement is even true in any sense at all. Trophy disputed it in the earlier thread:

              Originally posted by Trophy
              No one on this team is being consistent. He's probably been our best consistent scorer than anyone else.


              Wells has certainly failed to make clear what he means by consistent. In fact, he almost contradicts with himself by calling Rush unemotional.


              So I'm asking opinions about what the phrase means -- if anything -- when applied to Rush.



              .
              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


              • #8
                Re: Rush is inconsistent?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I take it to mean simply - that he is inconsistantly aggressive in his play.
                This.

                Sometimes he catches and tries to do something with the ball. Other times he makes swing passes or catches-and-shoots open jumpers all game.

                I bet his "dribbles taken in a game" stat varies a ton from night to night (and week to week).

                As nice as it is that he's actually making open jump shoots since December ended, it's not like his increased scoring average has come from him being aggressive and getting into the paint off the bounce a lot more. (At least not a lot more every night.) His 10.3 ppg in January vs his 8.4 ppg in November can largely be attributed to his going from 1.3 made threes per game to 1.8 made threes per game.

                That's the extra 1.5 ppg anyway.

                Maybe he is getting the extra 0.4 ppg by creating his own shot ... and in fact that would make sense with what I'm seeing qualitatively -- just about one nice drive to the hoop and 2-point finish every 4 games.

                Just by hitting open jumpers and playing decent D, he's worthy of being out there on the floor, so I'm not trying to say anything really negative about his play since the calendar flipped to 2010 ... just saying that he's not a doing a ton differently than before aside from making shots that he was inexplicably missing in November and December. He hasn't had some sort of offensive epiphany about finding new ways to score.

                EDIT: Also, just look at his FGA per game. That shows you a lot about his inconsistent aggressiveness.

                http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/...tJoZ_iTZ3YPaB4
                Last edited by JayRedd; 02-12-2010, 12:09 PM.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rush is inconsistent?

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  This.

                  Sometimes he catches and tries to do something with the ball. Other times he makes swing passes or catches-and-shoots open jumpers all game.

                  I bet his "dribbles taken in a game" stat varies a ton from night to night (and week to week).

                  As nice as it is that he's actually making open jump shoots since December ended, it's not like his increased scoring average has come from him being aggressive and getting into the paint off the bounce a lot more. (At least not a lot more every night.) His 10.3 ppg in January vs his 8.4 ppg in November can largely be attributed to his going from 1.3 made threes per game to 1.8 made threes per game.

                  That's the extra 1.5 ppg anyway.

                  Maybe he is getting the extra 0.4 ppg by creating his own shot ... and in fact that would make sense with what I'm seeing qualitatively -- just about one nice drive to the hoop and 2-point finish every 4 games.

                  Just by hitting open jumpers and playing decent D, he's worthy of being out there on the floor, so I'm not trying to say anything really negative about his play since the calendar flipped to 2010 ... just saying that he's not a doing a ton differently than before aside from making shots that he was inexplicably missing in November and December. He hasn't had some sort of offensive epiphany about finding new ways to score.

                  EDIT: Also, just look at his FGA per game. That shows you a lot about his inconsistent aggressiveness.

                  http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/...tJoZ_iTZ3YPaB4
                  Also, the article was spurred by the way Rush had played recently. Through January 13th, Rush had averaged 7.4 pts with a standard deviation of 4.7, basically having about 2/3's of his games being within +/- 64% of his average.

                  Since then, he's kept the stddev of 4.7, but increased his scoring to 12.3 pts, so the ratio drops to 38% of his average.

                  But, more to the point, I think it's a comment on the fact that nobody inside the organization - players, coaches, management, Brandon - can figure out what makes him tick.

                  Consider this from Tom Lewis:

                  http://www.indycornrows.com/2010/2/1...16/pacers-news

                  Morway mentioned the team's goal of having 7-8 solid assets in place and then being able to use the cap space available by 2011 to fill in other players they need. By solid he didn't mean, All-Star but guys who could play various roles, give the team depth. Mark Patrick asked how many of those 7-8 the team had right now and he quickly reeled off Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, A.J. Price and Tyler Hansbrough talking about the young players needing to continue developing. He hedged a bit when discussing Brandon Rush, but eventually said they plan to keep him around. Not exactly a glowing endorsement. Morway also included Dahntay Jones, listing a bunch of little things he brings to the team, not all on the court. Dahntay will have two years left on his deal at that time.
                  I think Wells was trying to write a feel good piece about how Rush had played lately, but when he asked around about why, the answers probably ranged from "beats me" to "****, I don't know."

                  The idea that this is a response to a poor locker room/coaching situation would carry a lot more weight if this hadn't been a pretty regular complaint about Brandon when he was at Kansas.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X