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

Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

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

  • #31
    Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

    I think it's just the way the game is being played. If you notice, all the high contest players are centers and the low ones are PFs. Probably more to do with how PFs are stepping further and further away for their offensive games, pulling their PF defender out away from the rim, while Centers have the job of rotating to challenge drivers. PF's are probably contesting shots mostly on their assignments, while Centers are challenging shots on their defensive assignments and when they help.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

      The case made in the article is EXPLICITLY that we can deduce a "system" by looking at West's low shot contest vs Roy's high contest. If Roy is putting FG% deep into the blue then ideally you'd want him defending every single shot. West drives a player to Roy (or Ian), they blow up the shot, and then ideally another player drops to get the rebound since Roy/Ian give up rebounding position to defend the shot.

      The article does not suggest West is a poor defender, at least not in the stats presented.


      Another deduction they are alluding to is the DeAndre factor someone else mentioned...there might be a conclusion that if you are getting juicy RED attempts at the 3pt arc vs Harden you would reduce the shot attempts at the rim vs Howard. Imagine if you are facing Roy (or Duncan) and you had the option to skip the drive and instead take a 3PA vs a Harden caliber defender...the Points per Attempt go up so you do it.

      The statistical result would be very high shot attempts at the arc (see Harden graph) and very low attempts in the lane (see Howard).

      This DOES NOT MEAN that Howard isn't a great defender, it's simply saying that the system/teammate combo can have an impact on both FG% and number of attempts.


      One thing in CP's favor is that shooters just don't take shots against him, period. Jordan might help him reduce the mid-range make rate, but the arc attempts are also extremely low too. It would be interesting to see a overlay (or really a side by side) of the team charts vs the player charts. That would really help tell the story.




      One other thing as a "system/teammates make all the difference" supporter, which I 100% am - in the end does it matter for the discussion of "best NBA defender"? Not really. Maybe Curry would get less shots or worse looks in another system and we wouldn't even notice him nearly as much, maybe he would seem more like a Korver clone, for example. In the end it doesn't matter because we don't know. All we do know is that due to combo of coaching strategy, teammates, nightly matchups (including back to back, injuries, etc), and so on that this guy IS PRODUCING RESULTS.

      So if we go on to accept that this type of attempt/FG% chart has real meaning in measuring how well a player is doing, then to me it's just as good as PPG, eFG% or other offensive stats that in the end roughly settle the debate of "is this guy really good on offense".

      Over time these charts will be evaluated based on how consistantly they do translate across trades and FA movement. As we don't (or do) see drastic variation (ie, circumstances as a small/large factor) we will know the merit of the evaluation. I suspect the variation won't be as dramatic as you might think.


      By the way, that type of circumstantial variation also dramatically affects PPG, FG%, REB, AST, and so on. Just ask any player that's ever lost a rebound to Lance. Or ask all the guys that got better looks thanks to Shaq or Jordan being on the court at the same time drawing all the attention.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

        Affect vs effect

        "A" stands for ACTION, did someone take action to AFFECT the situation, easy verb vs noun pneumonic device

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

          So you know what stats are alluded to but not presented that would be really incredible? Average distance from assigned player, average space given on a PnR, and so on. Does a player stay within 14 inches of his man or 17 inches? Does one player show huge variance in how close he sticks to his man from play to play?

          Or how about help defense. How far away does an offensive player get before the help defender begins moving from his location to help, ie gauge the level of on-court cues a defender must have before he realizes help is required (def awareness).

          If you can truly create a decent set of spatial vectors tying players to their defenders, putting distance and timing to every movement, then you can look at a set of items way more impressive than just FGA Vs and FG% Vs.



          Imagine seeing a stat that says that PG is able to sit an average of 3 feet away from his man, yet give up the same FG% as players that have to stay within 1.5 feet to accomplish that goal. The implication being that his length, speed and reaction allow him to "cheat" into help spacing wihtout sacrificing production against his primary assignment.

          Tie that to help defensive numbers and you can really show something of a "total impact" metric on defense.

          Bad freaking a**!
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-25-2015, 02:16 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

            I'm a stats guy as well....so stuff like this fascinates me.....but you have to wonder if Elite Defenders actually take their time and go over who their defensive assignments are and figure out where to hound a Player at different spots on the court. I'd hope that with all of these analytics.....that the Tony Allen's of the NBA sits down before the game and pays attention to where Harden's of the NBA Hot Spot is and where his Cold Spot is.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              So you know what stats are alluded to but not presented that would be really incredible? Average distance from assigned player, average space given on a PnR, and so on. Does a player stay within 14 inches of his man or 17 inches? Does one player show huge variance in how close he sticks to his man from play to play?

              Or how about help defense. How far away does an offensive player get before the help defender begins moving from his location to help, ie gauge the level of on-court cues a defender must have before he realizes help is required (def awareness).

              If you can truly create a decent set of spatial vectors tying players to their defenders, putting distance and timing to every movement, then you can look at a set of items way more impressive than just FGA Vs and FG% Vs.



              Imagine seeing a stat that says that PG is able to sit an average of 3 feet away from his man, yet give up the same FG% as players that have to stay within 1.5 feet to accomplish that goal. The implication being that his length, speed and reaction allow him to "cheat" into help spacing wihtout sacrificing production against his primary assignment.

              Tie that to help defensive numbers and you can really show something of a "total impact" metric on defense.

              Bad freaking a**!
              You'd think that at some point, all of these analytics will measure all of these minute details in the game.

              I'd be interested in where GH falls under the whole PG defense when it comes to these analytics. I would think that outside of elite level PGs that can defend like CP3, quick but lengthy PGs would be up there on the list of top PG defenders when it comes to these stats.
              Last edited by CableKC; 02-25-2015, 02:20 PM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                You'd think that at some point, all of these analytics will measure all of these minute details in the game.
                I'm sure they already can.

                And Seth's idea is interesting, but it doesn't have much practical value. Like he's pointed out, length of the defender is going to vary how close or how far their defense stance should be from the offensive player. One thing that the tracking system already does though, is that he can also map shadow players (for the defense for example) and show where each defensive player should be in help side.

                That last bit — the ability to recognize individual player skills — is crucial for the juiciest bit of what the Raptors have accomplished: those clear circles that sort of follow the Toronto players around and have the same jersey numbers. Those are ghost players, and they are doing what Toronto’s coaching staff and analytics team believe the players should have done on this play — and on every other Toronto play the cameras have recorded.3 The system has factored in Toronto’s actual scheme and the expected point value of every possession as play evolves.4 The team could use that expected value system to build an “ideal” NBA defense irrespective of the Toronto scheme, but doing so today would be pointless, since part of the team’s job is to sell a sometimes skeptical coaching staff on the value of all these new numbers and computer programs, says Alex Rucker, the Raptors’ director of analytics.
                http://grantland.com/features/the-to...al-revolution/

                It would be fun to have access to see which players are where they're supposed to be and when they're not how far they're from it. Get enough data out of it, and you could come up with a scale to rate players defensive positioning. A pipe dream yes, but it would be informative.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Affect vs effect

                  "A" stands for ACTION, did someone take action to AFFECT the situation, easy verb vs noun pneumonic device
                  THANK YOU!

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I'm a stats guy as well....so stuff like this fascinates me.....but you have to wonder if Elite Defenders actually take their time and go over who their defensive assignments are and figure out where to hound a Player at different spots on the court. I'd hope that with all of these analytics.....that the Tony Allen's of the NBA sits down before the game and pays attention to where Harden's of the NBA Hot Spot is and where his Cold Spot is.
                  If they don't, they should. Just like pitchers and catchers vs hitters. It would have to help.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Department of Defense - Grantland (Analytics) Mentions Roy/West/PG/CJ Watson

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I'm sure they already can.

                    And Seth's idea is interesting, but it doesn't have much practical value. Like he's pointed out, length of the defender is going to vary how close or how far their defense stance should be from the offensive player. One thing that the tracking system already does though, is that he can also map shadow players (for the defense for example) and show where each defensive player should be in help side.
                    I'd think for such a stat that it would take into account the Player's profile.....but like most stats.....it's all based off of the Player. If there isn't much difference for a Player with length like PG13 to defend 1 foot away from the Player as opposed to 2 feet away....I'd think that it would allow PG13 to sag off a little to better defend a drive to the basket and less likely to draw a foul.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X