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

Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

    I have not read this all the way through, so I don't know what to make of it.
    You might want to click on the link if the stats are hard to follow

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...ohn&id=2007347


    Evans challenges all-time champ Rodman
    By John Hollinger, ESPN Insider
    John Hollinger Archive

    Care to guess who's having one of the best rebounding seasons in history?

    Your first instinct might be to say Kevin Garnett, who's running away with the rebounding title. He's averaging 13.7 boards a game, which is nearly two more than his closest competitor. Considering his sizable lead, it seems heretical to suggest somebody else is the league's best rebounder. But it's true. Though hardly a household name, the Seattle SuperSonics' Reggie Evans is putting Garnett to shame with his rebounding exploits.



    How did I arrive at this conclusion? It all starts with a simple premise: A player can't get a rebound unless somebody misses a shot. Following from that logic, the best way to rate rebounders is by the percentage of missed shots they reel in, not by the amount they pull down per game or even per minute.

    Consider the following example.

    Player A gets 10 rebounds in a game with 20 missed shots, while Player B nabs 20 in a game with 100 missed shots. Player B has twice as many rebounds, but is he really better? Player A grabbed a Herculean 50 percent of all the missed shots in his game, while Player B took in only 20 percent. We shouldn't hold it against Player A that there were so few missed shots for him to rebound.

    This is where my tool called Rebound Rate comes in. By measuring the percentage of available rebounds that a player gets while he's on the floor, Rebound Rate makes Player A's superiority obvious.

    To calculate a player's Rebound Rate, start by adding all the rebounds and opponents' rebounds in his team's games. Multiply that result by the percentage of the team's minutes that player has played. This gives you the approximate number of rebounds available while he was on the court. Finally, take his total rebounds, divide it by the available rebounds, and multiply by 100.

    And there you have it – a player's Rebound Rate.

    Using this calculation, Garnett's Rebound Rate is exceptional. Since there are 10 players on the court at any time, an average Rebound Rate is 10.0, but Garnett pulls in 20.3 percent of the available rebounds when he's on the court. Basically, he's doing the work of two people. The reigning MVP's effort is doubly amazing considering how much time he spends playing on the perimeter on both offense and defense.

    However, a few players have been even more exceptional than Garnett, most notably Evans.

    He has yanked down nearly a quarter of the missed shots when he's been on the court, making him the runaway winner in Rebound Rate. Two spots behind him is teammate Danny Fortson, who led the league in this category in 2001-02 and again last season (Garnett was third) and is in the running this year. Seattle's dynamic duo doesn't possess glitzy per-game averages – 9.3 for Evans and 6.1 for Fortson. But once you consider that each averages fewer than 25 minutes per game, it becomes easy to see how they can rank at the top.


    Rebound Rate Top 10
    Min. 500 minutes (through 3/6)
    Player Team Rate
    Reggie Evans SuperSonics 24.5
    Dan Gadzuric Bucks 21.3
    Danny Fortson SuperSonics 21.2
    Jeff Foster Pacers 20.8
    Kevin Garnett Timberwolves 20.3
    Tim Duncan Spurs 19.8
    Joel Przybilla Trail Blazers 19.2
    Tyson Chandler Bulls 19.1
    Troy Murphy Warriors 19.0
    Ben Wallace Pistons 19.0

    For further evidence of the Seattle duo's impact, just look at the Sonics' overall Rebound Rate.

    They grab 52.1 percent of missed shots, the fifth-best mark in the league, and that's almost entirely due to the efforts of Evans and Fortson. Nick Collison is the only other Sonic regular with a Rebound Rate above 12, while the five Sonics who play the most minutes – Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Luke Ridnour, Vladimir Radmanovic and Antonio Daniels – all are in single digits. With so few teammates pulling their own weight, it's extraordinary that Evans and Fortson can more than make up for them in their limited minutes.

    Garnett, meanwhile, is fifth, right behind Indiana's Jeff Foster. Garnett's Rebound Rate is still amazing, especially since he can't focus single-mindedly on rebounding as the four players ahead of him do. But for pure rebounding excellence, the two Sonics are a cut above right now.

    As a matter of fact, let's get some historical perspective on Evans's extraordinary rebounding performance. Based on the Rebound Rates for every player since 1970-71 when the NBA started tracking opponents' rebounds, Evans is moving into the exalted territory previously occupied by only one man: Dennis Rodman.



    Best Rebound Rates
    Since 1970-71
    (min. 500 minutes)
    Player Year Rate
    Dennis Rodman 1994-95 29.7
    Dennis Rodman 1993-94 29.6
    Dennis Rodman 1995-96 26.6
    Dennis Rodman 1991-92 26.2
    Dennis Rodman 1992-93 26.0
    Dennis Rodman 1996-97 25.7
    Reggie Evans 2004-05 24.5
    Dennis Rodman 1997-98 24.0
    Ben Wallace 2002-03 23.2
    Moses Malone 1979-80 23.2



    The seven best Rebound Rates since 1970-71 all belong to the Worm during seven consecutive seasons from 1991-92 to 1997-98.

    In six of them, he grabbed more than a quarter of the available rebounds, the only player in the last 35 years to do so. But with just a slight increase in the season's final 25 games, Evans could be joining Rodman. He's already broken into the bottom layer of Rodman's era of dominance, eclipsing the former Mr. Electra's 1997-98 campaign. Except for the Ruthian exploits of the Worm, Evans is having the best rebounding season in the past four decades.

    Understanding Rebound Rate also makes it easier to comprehend the Sonics' staggering improvement this year. With Evans and Fortson making up for their teammates' biggest shortcomings, the Sonics have gone from being one of the league's worst rebounding teams to one of its best.

    Thus, while Garnett's gaping lead in rebounding average garners the spotlight, a much more amazing feat is being accomplished in relative obscurity. Reggie Evans cleans up on KG – and everybody else.

    John Hollinger is the author of "Pro Basketball Forecast 2004-05." He has joined ESPN Insider as a regular contributor.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

    Interesting statistic.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

      Originally posted by btownpacer
      Pretty good for a guy who supposedly shouldn't even be getting playing time...
      No one said that.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

        I'm with Peck on this issue, the majority of Jeff's rebounds should almost be loose balls, not rebounds.

        Reggie Evans is one of those guys I've really wished were on this team all season.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

          I dont know why you guys think Jeff is not a good rebounder.

          Whenever Dale gets a rebound even if he is the only one who is anywhere near the ball it looks like he had to beat the **** out of someone to get it, thats just the way he plays. Jeff just grabs the ball and passes it out. I think he is just not showing the effort so some of you think they are just falling into his hands.

          If that many balls just fell into players hands why didnt Rick average 15 rpg?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

            I count Jeff being the 4th best, not 3rd.. but still impressive!! (perhaps they should also take into account the quality of rebounders also on the floor?)
            Here, everyone have a : on me

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

              Jeff is a "soft" rebounder, Evans, KG, Duncan, Big Ben, whoever else you can name is a heavy-duty rebounder. That's the plain truth, ma'am.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Foster 3rd leading rebounder this season? Better than Garnett and big Ben.

                I don't care what kind of rebounder you are, as long as you get them. Jeff gets his rebounds, and is a terrific rebounder. I have no qualms about him starting
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...
                X