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

Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

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

  • #16
    Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

    You really have to be nuts to not realize that the team plays better overall basketball when Sarunas/DA are on the floor. I have to admit though that I am surprised about Granger being rated so low. It seems these ratings put the emphasis on team defense more than individual defensive skills and come to think of it, I don't find it so absurd to say that Sarunas plays better team defense than Granger if you really watch the games

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

      WINVAL originally started with Sagarin at Dallas, but Cuban is a progressive owner and he's more open to these things. In a sense, Dallas is the first, but not necessarily best at using complex stats for games. San Antonio uses these types of analyses a lot too. Rosenbaum took Sagarin's basic model, and refined it quite a bit.

      There are a 2 or 3 guys out there who have been testing and doing this for years with fancy degrees, backgrounds in advanced CS, econ, etc. Most of these guys are consultants for teams. Most teams, in all honesty, have no idea what they're doing with this stuff.

      Dean Oliver helped the Supersonics achieve "overachiever" status, and Dan Rosenbaum is working with a team on statistical/personnel issues.

      Rosenbaum actually talks about the strength and weaknesses of WINVAL here http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/ He doesn't post here anymore since taking a position with the league.

      The post is titled: Using statistics in basketball: the bar is higher from Monday, August 29, 2005. The article speaks directly to the use of +/- stats vs. traditional scouting, and the weaknesses and strengths of each.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

        Moneybasketball?

        If Donnie Walsh retires, we should make a run at Billy Beane.
        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
        RSS Feed
        Subscribe via iTunes

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

          Originally posted by Roferr View Post
          Damn, Seth, I think that's twice now that we've agreed on something. What's happening?
          The problem is that you think this proves that Saras or Foster are good, or that Jackson is bad. At least I think that's what you view. I recall last year you being very big on the RAW per 48 +/- of Saras, for example. That's where we tend to disagree I think, not in the method of analyzing the team. In that regard we typically line up pretty well I think.


          Please note that Dan R's system noticed BOTH of these following things (for 03-04)
          Three players (Nenê, Jeff Foster, and Eric Williams) seem to have genuinely quite good ratings that cannot be explained away by sampling variation. Foster replaced an All-Star in Brad Miller and his team did not miss a beat, ending up with the best record in the League.
          Go Jeff.

          But...
          It appears that rebounds are less valuable than typically assumed

          Also a further note that I think 82games only did the standard adjusted +/- of Dan's formula, not the one that combines the "pure adjusted" with the one created by weighting stats into a formula in order to remove more of the noise (that crazy 5 minute player that is apparently 6th best in the NBA in raw stats).


          But you know me, I do believe in data as long as the applications of analysis are done with caution and understanding, something Dan is really good about. He will always qualify his work and note it's flaws and limitations.

          Even after all of this he suggests that there will likely still be a 15% error rate even with unlimited data points to enter (games played).

          I prefer to go to multiple data sources when looking at a player.


          I will say this, Dan's numbers totally supported my point about AI vs Andre Miller according to 82games David Lewin
          David runs the Dan R formula for 05-06
          The Allen Iverson Trade
          The biggest story in basketball lately is Allen Iverson’s move to Denver. There has been a lot of speculation as to whether the Nuggets are now a title contender, or if this trade even makes them better. Iverson is clearly a great scorer, but he tends to use a huge number of possessions inefficiently, and doesn’t play much defense. I was very surprised to see John Hollinger gloss over these facts in his recent review of the trade, but clearly he buys into the conventional wisdom that although Iverson is flawed his scoring ability is enough to make his teams better.

          Reality tells a bit of a different story. In 2005-2006 Iverson made his team 7.38 points per 100 possessions better with him on the court (as opposed to replacing him with an average player). This is good, 42nd in the league, but not as good as Iverson’s reputation would lead you to expect. Andre Miller closely followed Iverson, ranking 52nd with a value of 6.62. In 2004-2005 (full report on that data coming next week) Iverson actually had an impact of -4.41 compared to an average player. Miller was more consistent year to year, with a value of 5.62. This suggests that if both players play as they have in the past then the Nuggets will be at best as good as they were before the trade.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

            Originally posted by rimock31 View Post
            You really have to be nuts to not realize that the team plays better overall basketball when Sarunas/DA are on the floor. I have to admit though that I am surprised about Granger being rated so low. It seems these ratings put the emphasis on team defense more than individual defensive skills and come to think of it, I don't find it so absurd to say that Sarunas plays better team defense than Granger if you really watch the games
            Another thing to consider is who both of these players match up against. A lot of Granger's minutes come against lineups with 5 starters, or 4 starters/1 bench player. Most of Sarunas' minutes are against lineups with no more than 3 starting players. If you put Granger on a second unit, he would be matching up against less talented offensive players and his defense would "look better". If you consistently put Sarunas out there as a starter, the defense will be exposed.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

              [QUOTE=Naptown_Seth;527028]The problem is that you think this proves that Saras or Foster are good, or that Jackson is bad. At least I think that's what you view. I recall last year you being very big on the RAW per 48 +/- of Saras, for example. That's where we tend to disagree I think, not in the method of analyzing the team. In that regard we typically line up pretty well I think.
              _________________________________________________

              There you go again, Seth....telling me what I think. I purposely, withheld any comment about any of the ratings of the particular players, so that you couldn't accuse me of what you just did.

              I posted the thread because, with all the variables that are factored in, the Winval stats are a better indicator than the +/-.

              I haven't made a derogatory remark about Jax for what seems like months. He's been playing his best ball, for the most part, since he became a Pacer. Even you have to admit, that his play has been much better than at any time last season. The big differences I think are shot selection and taking the ball to the rack with authority. When he does these two things, he's a different ballplayer which I've noted now several times.

              Why do you always think my posts are bashing Jax? You're not getting paranoid, are you.
              .

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                Originally posted by able View Post
                without knowing........... what input, time frames/intervals, compensation values for minutes and opponents (who are they playing at that moment) what plays are ran and for who, and so on and so on neither of the articles are worth a penny except some nice advertising.
                Using your logic, all stats are worthless. I think that I will listen to the experts on this, they seem to know what they are talking about.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                  Originally posted by ChicagoPacer View Post
                  WINVAL originally started with Sagarin at Dallas, but Cuban is a progressive owner and he's more open to these things. In a sense, Dallas is the first, but not necessarily best at using complex stats for games. San Antonio uses these types of analyses a lot too. Rosenbaum took Sagarin's basic model, and refined it quite a bit.

                  There are a 2 or 3 guys out there who have been testing and doing this for years with fancy degrees, backgrounds in advanced CS, econ, etc. Most of these guys are consultants for teams. Most teams, in all honesty, have no idea what they're doing with this stuff.

                  Dean Oliver helped the Supersonics achieve "overachiever" status, and Dan Rosenbaum is working with a team on statistical/personnel issues.

                  Rosenbaum actually talks about the strength and weaknesses of WINVAL here http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/ He doesn't post here anymore since taking a position with the league.

                  The post is titled: Using statistics in basketball: the bar is higher from Monday, August 29, 2005. The article speaks directly to the use of +/- stats vs. traditional scouting, and the weaknesses and strengths of each.
                  No doubt, the team to which he was referring was the Mavs.
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                    Originally posted by bulldog
                    I don't get what you're trying to say.

                    Also, while I understand a message board is a venue for expressing your own personal opinions, I don't get how anyone can flippantly and totally disregard these systems when pretty much every team in the NBA employs systems like these, and one of the best uses the particular one in discussion.

                    Basically, my point is these systems are used by people who know a lot about basketball, so anyone who's gonna go out and say they're entirely worthless should at least take the time to formulate some sort of dicussion.
                    Sorry, I just do not see the amazingly significant information presented by the WINVAL statistics, to be that important in the scope of the team. In certain cases, WINVAL and +/- can prove to be useful, however, if you legitimately need them to determine your lineups (and judge individual performers), then there's something missing. You play your best players, hope it works out, and if it doesn't, you work on different lineups in practice and make adjustments that way. Otherwise, relying too heavily on some formulation created by someone who doesn't even watch your team on a regular basis just seems a bit flawed.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                      Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                      Sorry, I just do not see the amazingly significant information presented by the WINVAL statistics, to be that important in the scope of the team. In certain cases, WINVAL and +/- can prove to be useful, however, if you legitimately need them to determine your lineups (and judge individual performers), then there's something missing. You play your best players, hope it works out, and if it doesn't, you work on different lineups in practice and make adjustments that way. Otherwise, relying too heavily on some formulation created by someone who doesn't even watch your team on a regular basis just seems a bit flawed.

                      I have the feeling that if these WINVAL stats showed that Jack had one of the better numbers, you would be singing a different tune.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                        I'm always game for using statistics to try to get a handle on the elusive "winner" trait. I hate "trends" for exactly the same reason. They have no bearing on how you are as a complete player. If a College freshman had 6 amazing games (all of which were wins), but the 14 prior he played like crap and his team lost every game, does that mean he's the best player ever? No, it means his team is 6-14 and you can't count on him.

                        At the professional level, I'll take any edge I can get. I think the system is far, far more valuable for when you're scouting college or foreign guys that you may not have neccessarily seen play live. You probably can't get game tape of every game every player has played in, but you can sure as hell get every player's stats for every game that year, plug it into the formula, and see who comes out on top.

                        It shouldn't be used as the be-all and end-all, but it certainly can't hurt in terms of giving a bench guy more minutes or as a tie-breaker for two players you like in the draft.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                          Sorry, I just do not see the amazingly significant information presented by the WINVAL statistics, to be that important in the scope of the team. In certain cases, WINVAL and +/- can prove to be useful, however, if you legitimately need them to determine your lineups (and judge individual performers), then there's something missing. You play your best players, hope it works out, and if it doesn't, you work on different lineups in practice and make adjustments that way. Otherwise, relying too heavily on some formulation created by someone who doesn't even watch your team on a regular basis just seems a bit flawed.
                          I think there is some validity to this point.

                          Statistics and regressions are often useful at explaining the real world, but are incomplete.

                          The point is, certain teams have hired firms to help them with statistical analysis as a supplement or complement to traditional scouting and traditional stats.

                          Without the "per 48" stat, how did a coach ever know when a young player was ready for more playing time? They watched him. Now, with stats, they have additional data that helps them expand a player's role at the right time, instead of "whenever the coach notices."

                          These stats are interesting, and have some use/ value (perhaps even a significant amount of use/ value), but are certainly never going to be sufficient on a stand-alone basis, and are never going to be the primary inputs into key coaching decisions like playing time and rotations, but they can be relied on for explanatory assistance.

                          I used to be much more interested in stats, and was always amazed that when my Dad was coaching that he had no idea what any of his player's individual stats or averages were but that he "knew" which lineups to put together. Lets think about football - there are no stats for an offensive line - so there's clearly an "art" to coaching decisions that stats will never replace. There is probably more "science" in personnel decisions than coaching decisions though.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                            You're right. These things should be used as supplements to traditional coaching observations. But Rosenbaum has a pretty good point using a baseball analogy: it's really hard to tell the difference between a .260 hitter and a .280 hitter by watching. It comes down to an extra hit every 10 to 12 games.

                            In basketball, there is a formula that predicts wins based upon your opponent's scoring average and your scoring average:

                            Pts^13/(Pts^13 + Opp Pts^13)

                            How good is this formula at calculating wins? So good that the standard error is +/- 1.2 wins in an 82 game season. It didn't work out that way for the Pacers last year, because they lost more than their share of close games, but in general, it has worked for everyone, Pacers included.

                            An absolutely average team last year scored 97 ppg, gave up 97 ppg, and won 41 games. They also played at an average pace measured in possessions, where a possession can simply be thought of as a trip down the floor. Average possessions were 93 last year.

                            What would happen to a team if they could just score 1 more basket that otherwise would have led to a turnover/missed shot rebounded by the defense, etc out of 93 chances? They would go from being a 41 win team to a 46-47 win team.

                            What would happen if they could also improve their defense in only one posession out of 93? They would be a 52-53 win team.

                            There is such a thin line that separates a .500 ballclub (us or Chicago) from a 52 win type of club (Miami). That's what these types of stats address. Just one decision change on offense and defense a game can mean a lot.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                              Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                              I have the feeling that if these WINVAL stats showed that Jack had one of the better numbers, you would be singing a different tune.
                              Jack has the 4th highest +/- on this team, and yet I have never brought that up in any case (well, except for now obviously).

                              If you wish to shadow me merely to find avenues in which to diss Jack at every turn, then you need to rethink why you're here posting at PD.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?

                                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                                Jack has the 4th highest +/- on this team, and yet I have never brought that up in any case (well, except for now obviously).

                                If you wish to shadow me merely to find avenues in which to diss Jack at every turn, then you need to rethink why you're here posting at PD.
                                Now that you bring it up....Jax ranks 6th in the WINVAL stats. Not bad, conidering he ranks 4th, offensively. Just about where I would put him...right in the middle of the team.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X