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

After 5 Games: Some stats questions

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

  • After 5 Games: Some stats questions

    Five games amounts to 1/16th of the season. Nothing is decided, but it is time to be making judgments and adjustments. I pose here three questions stimulated by the early team statistics.


    1. Are the Pacers speeded up enough?

    Last year, the Pacers averaged 76.5 field goal attempts. In the first five games of this season, they've averaged 83.8 FGA. The team really is moving to the rim faster. The increased field goal attempt rate is despite a higher turnover rate (18 per game this season, compared to 14.7 last year).

    Is this increase from 76.5 to 83.8 enough, or do you want to see even more FGA per game? Is Sam Mitchell's stated goal of 100 FGA per game for the Raptors reasonable?


    2. Are the Pacers still taking too many 3 point attempts?

    Last year, the Pacers relied very heavily on the 3-pt shot, taking 18.7 attempts per game. So far this season, they are down to 12.8 attempts per game. (In last night's blowout loss, when the Pacers were frar behind and missing their main post player they took 19).

    Is the 3pt shot where it needs to be, or would you want still fewer 3pt attempts?


    3. Who needs to shoot more?

    Harrington and Jackson lead the team in missed field goal attempts, with 40 and 42 respectively. That works out to 13.0 misses per 48 minutes for Harrington and 12.8 for Jackson, who, like last year has played the most minutes through the first five games. Jasikevisius ranks 3rd, chucking misses at the rate of 12.3 per 48 (actually 19 misses in 74 total minutes of play). Jermaine has 30 misses, which factors to 10.8 misses per game. Jermaine has a higher FG% (.524) than either the #2 or #3 options (Harrington is .459 and Jackson is .323).

    Is the shot distribution OK as it is, or do you want to see changes toward more high-percentage shots? If the latter, who should be taking more shots and what adjustments are needed to create those shots?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

    1) I think anyone who is honest has to be surprised at how fast the Pacers are playing. Admit it, you never thought Rick would do it.

    2) I think 12.8 is a good number, but if you take away the two losses the Pacers probably average 8 or 9 in their wins

    3) All I want Jackson to do is take good shots and that depends on who else is on the court and if anyone else is hot or if jax is hot himself. Jax is a player who can get a halfway decent shot off anytime he wants because of his height and the way he shoots it. But he needs to be more selective.

    Saras is the opposite of Jackson, he has trouble getting decent shots, so he needs to shoot when he's open, but no more, he should never force shots

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

      My main problem with # 2 isn't the quantity of the shots, but how/why they are taken. I feel like we could get a better shot on about half of the threes we're taking. It's the "settling" mentality that really hurts our team. And I notice that the style of play changes depending on the score. We're not hoisting up threes with a twenty point lead, but when down by ten we're looking for that shot.

      Not sure how I feel about the other two statements.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

        I think a problem we will face later on in the season is Rick's prevent offense.

        If we are up by 10 in the 4th with 10 minutes to go, I get the feeling that we are going to stop playing the way that got us that lead and go into half-court sets to waste the clock..but not get us decent shots.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

          Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

            Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
            Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.


            He hasn't found his shot yet, you overdramatic fool. If you actually know our players tendencies besides the almighty Harrison, you would know he's streaky. Besides, he hasn't been taking 15+ shots a game - he's been contributing extremely well in essentially every other aspect of the game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

              Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
              Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.
              Man have you been on troll mode for the last week or so.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.
                As inefficient as pretty much the entire team was last night, I guess you'd just prefer we take no shots. Or in the big picture, we could just dump it to JO and let him shot 50 shots a game. We'd be tough to defend. So Granger's underachieving and Jackson's atrocious. Who do you suggest we play the most minutes at SF/SG?
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                  Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                  Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.
                  Don't worry I feel your pain.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                    As inefficient as pretty much the entire team was last night, I guess you'd just prefer we take no shots. Or in the big picture, we could just dump it to JO and let him shot 50 shots a game. We'd be tough to defend. So Granger's underachieving and Jackson's atrocious. Who do you suggest we play the most minutes at SF/SG?
                    Quiseeee son!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      1) I think anyone who is honest has to be surprised at how fast the Pacers are playing. Admit it, you never thought Rick would do it.

                      2) I think 12.8 is a good number, but if you take away the two losses the Pacers probably average 8 or 9 in their wins

                      3) All I want Jackson to do is take good shots and that depends on who else is on the court and if anyone else is hot or if jax is hot himself. Jax is a player who can get a halfway decent shot off anytime he wants because of his height and the way he shoots it. But he needs to be more selective.

                      Saras is the opposite of Jackson, he has trouble getting decent shots, so he needs to shoot when he's open, but no more, he should never force shots
                      I agree for the most part, though I certainly thought/knew an RC offense could play this way since they did from 98-2K.

                      I'd rather watch the OPP FG% vs FGA per game by the Pacers. If you can get more looks without giving up easier looks to the other team, then okay. But if taking more shots means giving up a lot more points, then what was the reasoning for it in the first place.

                      This team doesn't have shooters that want to make it an open jump shot competition.

                      I simply want more action coming to the rim on plays, rather than settling for jumpers.

                      I agree with Imawhat on the 3pt choices. Often there have been other looks behind those 3pt shots that they pass up. 3s from time to time are nice, but attack the rim, draw fouls and get 3 the hard way instead. It helps put the opponent on the baseline which extends their court, puts them in a tough defensive spot due to fouls, and creates a lot more chances for closer looks and tip-ins.

                      The biggest key to go with that is that OTHER PLAYERS must follow the ball to the rim. You can't just stand outside and watch a guy drive, at least once your own defender drops off you.

                      I'll take the 12-13 3PA because frankly it's been disgusting the previous 2 years seeing it near 20 on average and 25+ on many nights.


                      I'd like to see Harrison getting a few more FGAs per, I'd like to see AL and Jack limit their FGAs to 10-12 per night, with JO running maybe 14, Tins around 6-7. Granger could use 7-8 himself on most nights. Then give SarJas, Daniels, Harrison 5-6 as well.

                      That gets it to 15-16 left to hit the 83 area that can come from Foster, Armstrong, Marshall, Powell or perhaps give all of the starters one more shot.

                      I'd want everyone to make at least 40% to keep those, and really more like 43-45% (better for the bigs).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                        Originally posted by BruceLeeroy View Post
                        Quiseeee son!

                        OK, I'm not your son. Now that we've got that out of the way, I would be more along that line of thinking but I don't think Quis has shown himself to be playing any better than Granger or Jackson.

                        In fact, other than the horrid showing against the Wiz, which goes for everyone by the way, I think Jack has been one of the better performers so far along with JO.

                        All this could change going forward. At which point changes would be fine. To this point, though, I don't think you can legitimately be that critical of Jackson.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          1) I think anyone who is honest has to be surprised at how fast the Pacers are playing. Admit it, you never thought Rick would do it.
                          Glad to admit it. I think the improved speed is a substantial achievement.

                          Originally posted by UncleBuck
                          2) I think 12.8 is a good number, but if you take away the two losses the Pacers probably average 8 or 9 in their wins
                          It's true, they shot 3s substantially more and worse in the losses:

                          1-7 beating Philly
                          6-16 beating Charlotte
                          8-19 beating the Knicks

                          7-16 losing to the Hornets
                          4-19 losing to the Wizards


                          Originally posted by UncleBuck
                          3) All I want Jackson to do is take good shots and that depends on who else is on the court and if anyone else is hot or if jax is hot himself. Jax is a player who can get a halfway decent shot off anytime he wants because of his height and the way he shoots it. But he needs to be more selective.

                          Saras is the opposite of Jackson, he has trouble getting decent shots, so he needs to shoot when he's open, but no more, he should never force shots

                          The shooting guard often has to take a shot when no one else can. I'd much rather Jackson shot at a rate of .32 than we lose possessions via shot clock violations. But the fact that he is missing more shots than the 1 and 2 options tells me he's shooting a few too many. I'm not concerned about the shooting percentages as much as the number of misses. You can't draw a definite conclusion from 5 games (and Jermaine missed one of those). But it is something to keep an eye on.
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                            Originally posted by ajbry View Post


                            He hasn't found his shot yet, you overdramatic fool. If you actually know our players tendencies besides the almighty Harrison, you would know he's streaky. Besides, he hasn't been taking 15+ shots a game - he's been contributing extremely well in essentially every other aspect of the game.
                            Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
                            Man have you been on troll mode for the last week or so.
                            Why am I getting criticized for wanting a SG who isnt a terrible shooter? He hasnt found his shot yet? Im asusming by "yet" you mean his entire career, in which case I'd agree with you. He cant shoot, and it looks like he'll never learn.

                            40% from the field, 35% from downtown, 75% from the line, turnover prone, argues with officials, gets into violent altercations with 3 fingered mutants at 3 in the morning - seriously, whats not to love abotu Stephen Jackson?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: After 5 Games: Some stats questions

                              Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                              Why am I getting criticized for wanting a SG who isnt a terrible shooter? He hasnt found his shot yet? Im asusming by "yet" you mean his entire career, in which case I'd agree with you. He cant shoot, and it looks like he'll never learn.

                              40% from the field, 35% from downtown, 75% from the line, turnover prone, argues with officials, gets into violent altercations with 3 fingered mutants at 3 in the morning - seriously, whats not to love abotu Stephen Jackson?
                              Okay, you are officially a troll. The last comment is completely unnecessary.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X