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

The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

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

  • The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

    (hat tip to xIndyfan who first posted this in another thread)

    Kevin Pelton, former Pacers consultant, ranks NBA teams by how stat-friendly they are.

    http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/stor...ytics-rankings

    Summary:

    1. ALL-IN
    Dallas Mavericks
    Houston Rockets
    Philadelphia 76ers
    San Antonio Spurs

    2. BELIEVERS
    Atlanta Hawks
    Boston Celtics
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Detroit Pistons
    Golden State Warriors
    Memphis Grizzlies
    Oklahoma City Thunder
    Portland Trail Blazers

    3. ONE FOOT IN
    Charlotte Hornets
    Indiana Pacers
    Miami Heat
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Orlando Magic
    Phoenix Suns
    Sacramento Kings
    Toronto Raptors
    Utah Jazz

    4. SKEPTICS
    Chicago Bulls
    Denver Nuggets
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Minnesota Timberwolves
    New Orleans Pelicans
    Washington Wizards

    5. NONBELIEVERS
    Brooklyn Nets
    Los Angeles Lakers
    New York Knicks

    Here's the section on the Pacers:

    Indiana Pacers

    The fundamentals of the Pacers' defense, the NBA's best on a per-possession basis in 2012-13 and 2013-14, were built on statistical principles. With the guidance of basketball analytics coordinator Ryan Renteria (a retired hedge fund manager), head coach Frank Vogel designed a scheme to protect the basket (taking advantage of Roy Hibbert's size and ability to contest without fouling) and the 3-point line, forcing opponents to the midrange. This season's drop-off without Paul George demonstrates the importance of personnel, but the scheme remains sound.

    On the front office side, Indiana GM Kevin Pritchard is a former player and scout who believes in advanced stats, having instituted an analytics department while with the Portland Trail Blazers that grew into one of the league's best. In addition to Renteria, who works primarily with the coaching staff, the Pacers also employ manager of basketball administration Spencer Anderson as a full-time analyst.

    While Pritchard is a believer, president of basketball operations Larry Bird, who has final say on personnel moves, is more skeptical. Bird has historically favored the scouting process, drafting a series of older prospects -- Brandon Rush, Tyler Hansbrough and Solomon Hill -- with mixed results. But Bird's scouting eye also paid off in the form of 2010 draft picks Paul George and Lance Stephenson.

    (Disclosure: I served as an analytics consultant for the Pacers between 2010 and 2012.)
    It's striking how some of the hottest teams right now are stat believers, while some of the league's most moribund franchises are not. This is not to say that being skeptical of advanced stats immediately dooms one to failure. The Bulls for one are a notable success story despite being quite traditional in both FO and coaching.

    Thoughts, comments? Any surprises on the list?

  • #2
    Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

    What I learned today is that:
    Dallas Mavericks
    Houston Rockets
    Philadelphia 76ers
    San Antonio Spurs
    Atlanta Hawks
    Boston Celtics
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Detroit Pistons
    Golden State Warriors
    Memphis Grizzlies
    Oklahoma City Thunder
    Portland Trail Blazers

    are skinny, wimpy guys who never played the game and love fat chicks.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

      The sixers rank as the most analytics-invested team in all of sports. Not just the NBA, but all of sports. I'd say that's a cautionary tale.

      That said, the constant shame war between "dumb jock" purists and "wimpy nerd" analytics supporters is getting old. Both sides need to admit there's a happy medium here and move on to improve the sport.
      Last edited by Kstat; 02-24-2015, 11:28 AM.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

        I like where the pacers are. Use it, but don't rely on it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

          Eh, the group of teams we are lumped in with isn't particularly encouraging.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

            With Pop's famous antipathy to advanced stats, it is interesting to see the Spurs in the "all in" category.
            BillS

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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              With Pop's famous antipathy to advanced stats, it is interesting to see the Spurs in the "all in" category.
              I think it makes perfect sense. You have one side of the operation, FO, that dives fully into analytics, while the other side of the operation, coaching staff, relies on the "eye test." So then you get in a room and hash it out on what type of player fits both. Sounds logical. Embrace all the tools at your disposal, instead of just half of them.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I think it makes perfect sense. You have one side of the operation, FO, that dives fully into analytics, while the other side of the operation, coaching staff, relies on the "eye test." So then you get in a room and hash it out on what type of player fits both. Sounds logical. Embrace all the tools at your disposal, instead of just half of them.
                I agree, but there have been people here using Pop as the poster boy for a successful team that doesn't believe in advanced stats.
                BillS

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I agree, but there have been people here using Pop as the poster boy for a successful team that doesn't believe in advanced stats.
                  I thought that was just Barkley?

                  According to the article anyway, Pop in fact led the Spurs' analytical charge.

                  General manager R.C. Buford explained at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference how the Spurs had, years earlier, married Popovich's coaching instincts to analytics: "I think Pop got interested when he saw areas that weren't traditional basketball philosophy that were important to him supported by the data. He started asking different questions."
                  It's always best IMO when it's the basketball people who are most invested in the new tools.
                  Last edited by wintermute; 02-24-2015, 12:13 PM. Reason: typo

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                    It's a tool, why wouldn't you use any tool at your disposal to get the job done. However it's still just a tool and you have to use the right tool to do the job. So sometimes it is going to be useful and the main tool and at other times its not. Or basically what Since86 said.

                    We have seen how advanced stats can be a boon (Vogel's defensive concept certainly is based on the analytics that a long two is the worst shot in the game) and we have seen it be a bane (Satan's interpretation that stretching the floor with your power forward was the single most important concept in his offense hence why till the day he was fired James Posey played more min. at power forward that season than any other Pacer even though he couldn't defend, run, rebound or basically do anything other than shoot the three point shot).

                    Tools of any type are only as good as the people using them.


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      The sixers rank as the most analytics-invested team in all of sports. Not just the NBA, but all of sports. I'd say that's a cautionary tale.
                      It's one reason I'm critical of Hinkie. He must know what a low percentage play his main strategy is, and in my view committing to it is just irresponsible. Worse, he's now the face of analytics to a lot of casual fans, never mind that many other teams have been doing it for longer and more successfully.

                      I have a cynical suspicion that Hinkie's perpetual rebuild is actually a way to extend his own GM life, but who knows.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        With Pop's famous antipathy to advanced stats, it is interesting to see the Spurs in the "all in" category.
                        I agree with using both, but this article seems to use a lot of speculation to push the idea that teams should be close to "all in" on analytics.
                        Last edited by freddielewis14; 02-24-2015, 12:25 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          We have seen how advanced stats can be a boon (Vogel's defensive concept certainly is based on the analytics that a long two is the worst shot in the game) and we have seen it be a bane (Satan's interpretation that stretching the floor with your power forward was the single most important concept in his offense hence why till the day he was fired James Posey played more min. at power forward that season than any other Pacer even though he couldn't defend, run, rebound or basically do anything other than shoot the three point shot).

                          .
                          Makes sense.

                          I think they are complimentary too.

                          Analytics tell you mid range game is a low percentage shot for NBA Team. Coaches say, we need to guard the 3s and basket. Analytics say these players are good at guarding the 3 and the basket. Coaches, have to find the best scheme to use those players correctly and get them to work in unison.

                          Its a tool a really powerful one for sure, but not very meaningful without the proper implementation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                            This article uses the Lakers signing Kobe or the Knicks bad season (shooting mid range jumper) to say they are nonbelievers, yet they acknowledge both teams have an analytics department while teams above them don't. Charlotte signed Lance, Dallas signed Rondo, etc. No data would support those signings, yet they get a pass.

                            These guys are just picking and choosing how they interpret who should be represented in the "Analytics era."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Great Analytics Ranking (ESPN)

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              The sixers rank as the most analytics-invested team in all of sports. Not just the NBA, but all of sports. I'd say that's a cautionary tale.

                              That said, the constant shame war between "dumb jock" purists and "wimpy nerd" analytics supporters is getting old. Both sides need to admit there's a happy medium here and move on to improve the sport.
                              Just because you use analytics doesn't mean you use them as well as or better than others who use them. I mean, every NBA head coach is a good coach or at least has a good basketball mind and is projected to be a good coach. Some are just better than others.

                              So its not any more of a cautionary tale than teams that refuse to use analytics but make bad decisions.

                              An interesting thing about analyzing trends is that when enough teams copy the strategy it invites a counter that will be successful against many teams. David West doesn't get the separation he used to, but he's given tons of wide open mid range jumpers because people are guarding the 3 point line first on rotations. He makes them at a higher rate than some people make contested layups, so he (and guys like him) actually gain an advantage.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X