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

Jay's dream trade

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

  • #16
    Re: Jay's dream trade

    Originally posted by rcarey
    Here's a good stat:

    Manu Ginobili: 2 Rings.
    Vince Carter: 0 Rings.

    I'm not trying to downplay Manu or anything, however the stat you just produced isn't really a very good stat because

    Judd Beuchler: 3 rings
    Reggie Miller: 0 rings


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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Jay's dream trade

      Originally posted by Peck
      I'm not trying to downplay Manu or anything, however the stat you just produced isn't really a very good stat because

      Judd Beuchler: 3 rings
      Reggie Miller: 0 rings
      Darko Milicic: 1 ring.
      Reggie Miller: 0 rings.

      I know, it can be misconstrued...but I still think the point gets across.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Jay's dream trade

        Could you imagine a Saras/Ginobili backcourt? Ohhhh man I hate myself for even thinking of that, that backcourt would be talented, fun to watch, and most importantly, would consist of two guys that are flat out winners.

        And I like Manu's hair when it is long, that's some awesome stuff.

        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Jay's dream trade

          tip: don't tell your wife that you are searching the internet to find the best 3-way you can find.

          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Jay's dream trade

            Don't make me move that post to the shout box.

            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Jay's dream trade

              Would be uber sweet... but it'll never happen.
              Here, everyone have a : on me

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Jay's dream trade

                Originally posted by [EMAIL="Jay@Section204"
                Jay@Section204[/EMAIL]]Probably because you're being mocked again, in a sly yet humerous way.
                Oh no! I'm being mocked by people who don't even have 1/10th my basketball knowledge! Im so badly hurt!

                Here's the average Jay@Section204 post - "Let's trade Ron for Earl Watson!!! Sure, Earl couldnt even start over Jason Williams but I watched him play 6 minutes when the Grizzlies were on TNT back in March of 2003 and he was awesome!! That must mean he's great even though his measured production for his entire career, not to mention the fact thats hes never been given a starting position anywhere, says otherwise!!!"

                Production > Everything Else

                Period.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Jay's dream trade

                  Originally posted by rcarey
                  Darko Milicic: 1 ring.
                  Reggie Miller: 0 rings.

                  I know, it can be misconstrued...but I still think the point gets across.
                  Yeah, the point that Tim Duncan is the best player in the league and can carry anyone to a championship.

                  Remember boys and girls, Duncan won a championship when Manu was still a greasy haired little punk playing in Europe. Duncan also won another championship when Manu was nothing more than Stephen Jackson's seat warmer.

                  Duncan won the championship, Manu was just lucky enough to be his sidekick. Manu could be replaced with atleast 15 perimeter players in the NBA and the Spurs would've still won the championship last year.
                  Take your pick: Paul Pierce, LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, Ron Artest, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson, Shawn Marion, Andrei Kirilenko, Joe Johnson, Ricky Davis, Larry Hughes, Carmelo Anthony, Rip Hamilton, Jason Richardson, Corey Maggette, Lamar Odom, Michael Redd, Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson, Peja Stojakovic

                  Manu is the new Kenyon Martin. A good - but not great - player who get's massively overrated because his team wins, due almost entirely to a superior teammate. (Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan)

                  I was saying the same thing about Martin back then and people were saying the same thing you all are now - that I'm an idiot. But I was right then, and I'm right now. Just give it a year or two, Duncan's already declining a good deal. Soon the Spurs entire team will decline, and you all will see just how unspecial Manu Ginobili is.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Jay's dream trade

                    You're a funny guy.

                    Manu was easily the best player on the court for three of the Spurs four wins in The Finals last spring.

                    What can't Manu do well? Nothing. Well, maybe he doesn't rebound especially well even for a guard, but that's minor.

                    He handles the ball well with either hand, is an excellent finisher, had a nice touch from the outside (he's a bit streaky from three point range but he's also smart enough to step in, too), has a great stop-and-pop move, is good at finding the open man, willing to defer to Duncan and even Parker (and Horry in the fourth quarter), plays hard on defense to overcome his average footspeed, and as mentioned he's won other stuff without Duncan (and I believe *against* Duncan for that matter) and he's reportedly a great locker-room guy.

                    The only people that don't put Manu in the top-fifteen (he's easily in my top-ten) in the league are the ones who just can't comprehend how much he *sacrifices* his individual game because he is playing alongside the best individual player in the league.

                    But if people are saying you're an idiot, its because your methodology to evaluate players is woefully inadequate.

                    And, by the way, if you put Manu alongside either KG or JO, that team would probably beat a team of Duncan and any possible sidekick.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Jay's dream trade

                      No, you're being mocked by people with 10x your basketball knowledge, but you don't even have enough basketball knowledge to understand it.

                      I'm smart enough to say that if I haven't seen a player enough, that I don't have an opinion of him.

                      Too bad you're apparently not...

                      I was trying to help you out. If you're too foolish/ stubborn to accept it, then that's your problem. Good luck.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Jay's dream trade

                        So then, based upon this years stats, there are 16 people better suited to trade for (17 but we already have JO)

                        Allen Iverson, PHI 23 44.1 34.0 11.7-26.1 45.000 1.1-3.5 .325 9.3-11.8 79.336
                        2 Kobe Bryant, LAL 22 40.4 31.2 11.6-26.6 43.515 1.0-3.5 .289 7.0-8.6 81.053
                        3 LeBron James, CLE 21 41.5 30.5 10.6-21.5 49.446 1.6-4.5 .347 7.7-9.9 77.778
                        4 G. Arenas, WAS 19 41.4 27.7 8.8-20.8 42.532 2.8-7.4 .379 7.2-8.9 80.588
                        5 Dwyane Wade, MIA 23 39.4 26.7 9.3-20.3 45.708 0.1-1.1 .077 8.1-10.6 76.955
                        6 Paul Pierce, BOS 21 39.2 26.5 8.6-17.7 48.656 1.3-3.0 .444 8.0-9.9 80.676
                        7 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 22 38.3 26.2 9.2-20.2 45.393 1.7-4.0 .416 6.1-7.0 87.662
                        8 Elton Brand, LAC 22 39.8 25.3 9.5-17.6 54.124 0.0-0.0 .000 6.2-8.0 77.273
                        9 Michael Redd, MIL 19 37.8 25.3 8.3-18.5 45.014 2.4-4.8 .495 6.3-7.6 82.069
                        10 Ray Allen, SEA 21 39.8 24.6 8.5-20.5 41.395 3.1-9.0 .342 4.5-5.1 88.785
                        11 C. Anthony, DEN 22 34.2 22.9 7.9-17.1 45.889 0.3-1.4 .226 6.8-8.5 80.214
                        12 J. Richardson, GSW 22 39.2 22.8 8.8-19.6 44.780 1.8-5.8 .307 3.5-5.1 68.142
                        13 R. Hamilton, DET 19 36.8 22.3 8.8-17.3 50.760 0.7-1.5 .464 4.0-4.6 86.364
                        14 Chris Bosh, TOR 22 39.0 22.2 7.5-15.8 47.550 0.0-0.1 .000 7.2-8.7 82.813
                        15 Kevin Garnett, MIN 21 39.9 22.0 8.8-16.5 53.179 0.1-0.3 .429 4.3-5.7 75.630
                        16 J. O'Neal, IND 20 36.7 21.7 8.2-17.2 47.384 0.1-0.2 .333 5.4-7.3 73.793
                        17 Vince Carter, NJN 20 36.1 21.5 8.0-17.6 45.170 1.3-3.7 .351 4.3-5.3 81.132
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Jay's dream trade

                          If we trade for VC, you might as well plan on trading Jax before the deadline. Jax cannot accept being no.3
                          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Jay's dream trade

                            Originally posted by [EMAIL="Jay@Section204"
                            Jay@Section204[/EMAIL]]No, you're being mocked by people with 10x your basketball knowledge, but you don't even have enough basketball knowledge to understand it.

                            I'm smart enough to say that if I haven't seen a player enough, that I don't have an opinion of him.

                            Too bad you're apparently not...

                            I was trying to help you out. If you're too foolish/ stubborn to accept it, then that's your problem. Good luck.
                            If a player is a good scorer, it will show up in his measured production. (ppg, fg%, ft%, 3p%)
                            If a player is a good rebounder, it will show up in his measured production. (rpg)
                            If a player is a good passer, it will show up in his measured production. (apg)
                            If a player is a good shooter, it will show up in his measured production. (ft%, fg%, 3p%)
                            If a player is a good shot blocker, it will show up in his measured production. (bpg)

                            Now obviously, you can't go by stats alone. There are other factors that can sway stats: ie, a player who plays with weak rebounders will have inflated rebounding numbers (Ben Wallace 2002-2003), a player who plays in a well structured offense will get better looks and thus have an inflated fg% and 3p% (Joe Johnson 2004), a player who dominates posesion of the ball for his team on offense will have inflated apg (Stephon Marbury) however it will be countered with more topg, etc. Also minutes per game can play a big part in stats.

                            However, the bottom line is, stats measure production, Good production is the key to success. Therefor, good stats = good production = success. It make sense. And the teams with the most overall productive players are the winninest teams (San Antonio, Detroit, Clippers, Phoenix etc.)

                            You can watch a player all you want, but you're not gonna get the same level on a players abilities as you will with measured production. Because believe it or not, stats don't lie, it's peoples perception of players that do.

                            Now, let me ask you some questions...
                            What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great scorer?
                            What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great rebounder?
                            What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great passer?
                            What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great shooter?
                            What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great shot blocker?
                            What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great overall player?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Jay's dream trade

                              Seth,

                              Would the Detroit Pistons be a better team with Rasheed Wallace starting at PF or with Mehmet Okur starting at PF? In your opinion.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Jay's dream trade

                                I can't believe how dense you're being.

                                The answer to most of your questions is to answer the questions I've been asking you.

                                You can't use stats to answer any of these questions, by the way. That's circular reasoning. You can't say, "I think player A is a great passer because he has a high ATO." That's backwards logic. The player has a high ATO because he does x, y, and z well. But there are still guys with a high ATO that nobody in their right mind would call a good passer - guys like AJ that can only make the safe pass, for example, and never even try to throw it into the paint.

                                Originally posted by Naptown Seth
                                Now, let me ask you some questions...
                                What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great scorer?
                                Can they create their own shot or do they have to rely on a team setting to get shots?
                                How many 'pet' moves? How good are each of the pet moves? How much of a dropoff to moves B, C, and D?
                                Do they have 'pet' moves on each side of the basket? From different spots on the court?
                                How easy is it for the defender to predict which move is coming?
                                How good are they at drawing fouls, continuing the shot, and hitting FTs?

                                What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great rebounder?
                                Playing in a quicker-paced game with more missed shots from both teams would serve to inflate rebounding numbers, so you certainly just can't look at rebounds from guys on two different teams and make any reasonable conclusions. Wilt averaged like 25+ rebounds per game for his career, but I'm not about to say that Ben Wallace is a lousy rebounder because he averages ten (or more) rebounds less per game.

                                When I'm evaluating a player's rebounding, I'll look for

                                A nose for the ball.
                                Ability to block out, keep other players away from the ball.
                                Hustle.
                                Playing closer to the basket (e.g. Pacers guards are supposed to get back on defense and will almost never have offensive rebounds, other teams - different approach and different results.)

                                What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great passer?
                                As a former PG, I've got a pretty good sense for whether or not the passer can find the open man and a passing lane, so that's the first thing I look for. If I can see somebody open, and know how I'd get the ball to him, then I expect NBA players to be able to do that as well. Although Travis could not and AJ struggles with that as well.

                                The second thing I look for is where the guy at the receiving end of the pass gets the ball. Does he have to reach for it? Does he have to give up post position? Mark Jackson always put the ball in Reggie's hands with the seems already lined up so that Reggie was ready to go right into his shooting motion. Is the pass to a moving player caught in stride, or does the player have to stop. That may not be recorded as a turnover, but its a bad pass that can kill a possession.

                                Derrick McKey was tall enough to throw a post entry pass that could not be intercepted. Jackson (or Workman) would have to lob the ball and it was easy for the defender to break contact with Rik, get in front of him, and steal it. But Derrick could put zip on it.

                                What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great shooter?
                                Technique is helpful, but we've seen flat-footed guys with a hitch in their stroke that can light it up, so its not everything.
                                Actually, the best answer is confidence.
                                The second most important thing is how well they get their legs into the shot, therefore, conditioning is vital.

                                What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great shot blocker?
                                Defensive schemes help a bunch here. The same defensive player, depending on matchups, may be either defending the post or playing the weakside. The easy example is Detroit, where 'Sheed and Ben can both play either position. But if 'Sheed is defending JO in the paint, and Ben is guarding Foster, he's just going to play goalie and wait until a little guy comes at him.

                                Further, let me just say that I don't think shot blocking is very important overall in terms of evaluating a player's defensive abilities. A large % of blocked shots are rebounded by the offensive team and converted into layups - especially if the shot blocker's momentum carries him away from the rim, leaving a big gaping seam for the offense to fill.

                                What do you think determines whether or not a player is a great overall player?
                                The first thing I look for is, how well do they play in the fourth quarter? That tells me two things - are they conditioned?, and how to they handle pressure? Next I'd look for their balance between their offensive and defensive games. I hate calling one-dimensional players "great". Thirdly, I'd look for diversity in their offensive game - how many different ways can a player 'hurt you'? Shooting, driving, passing, offensive rebounds, good-quality screens, etc.

                                Lastly, I'd just look for whether a player "makes plays" or not.

                                + + + + +

                                I'm not saying that stats have no meaning, but (1) they can be misleading, (2) stats never, ever, ever, ever explain why a player is good or bad or anything, and (3) unless you're the player's agent or playing fantasy basketball (and you can ask the guys around here, I'm absolutely awful at fantasy basketball because I'd rather watch real basketball than read boxscores), individual stats don't mean anything. The most important stat is whether or not a player is contributing to wins and losses. But you can't even measure that by individual plus/minus, because that can be influenced by the other players on the court, too.

                                As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

                                One of my basketball coaches, who was a math teacher, used to say, "Stats are numbers that are only good for telling lies."

                                And one of my stats professors in college would say, "Give me a set of data, and I can make it say anything I want." Matter of fact, one of our Managing Directors here is a former stats professer and he's, of course, got a great reputation nationally for his ability to take large volumes of data and manipulate it in ways to help our clients win key litigation cases. I don't think he's working today but I could get him to chime in if you're still overly smitten with stats.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X