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

Pacers "Market Watch"

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

    Well, if they weighing heavily on on FG%, Foster was our best this year outside of Baston and Harrison. Might explain O'Neal's spot as well (11th). Didn't investigate where they got their numbers from.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

      even better is Dalembert having a better offence rating than Iggy in the 76ers chart
      Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

        The page should be closed down. Just goes to show you how wrong a bunch of stats can be

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          The page should be closed down. Just goes to show you how wrong a bunch of stats can be
          That's what happens when you base your opinions off of box scores rather than watching the actual games.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

            Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
            That's what happens when you base your opinions off of box scores rather than watching the actual games.
            I strongly disagree. I've seen plenty of people observe one thing but then check the actual results and find out they were WAY off. Observational analysis is critical, but it absolutely must be tempered by the reality of compiled results.

            Sure secondary (or worse) stats can be misleading, meaning formulas using basic stats to come up with a new stat, I will never suggest otherwise. But too many people will say things like "Foster must have missed about 6 shots tonight" only to see he only TOOK 3 in total and hit one of those.

            Honestly the anti-stat view is a bit too "truthiness" for me. Or have you guys not had a girlfriend/wife that thought the 80 degree house temp was too cold, or the 65 degree temp was too hot?


            The problem with a formula is not "stats" or the twisting of numbers, though some people do intentionally abuse stats, the problem is with the LOGIC of what those mean. But I like a formula a lot better than someone's opinion for a very specific and important reason - formulas SPELL OUT THE LOGIC, that way you can actually understand what you disagree with about them.

            If I say "Dalembert is a better offensive player than Iggy" you can disagree but you can't disprove my view. That debate grinds to an instant halt. You only get somewhere when you can make a tangible case of instances, and like it or not stats are just a count of those instances (basic stats at least).

            You need numbers AND you need context. A formula attempts to put the two together. Then the formula is debated, refined, and a better attempt to put a tangible measure to your observations is made. In the end you find your way to a pretty good measurement.

            No measure is perfect, but god help you if you rely soley on your gut and the truthiness, that's a fool's errand.


            In application to this situation I would like to see the formula myself, how these players got their scores. Then we'd know what the catch is and could adjust their measurement to apply more realistically. And it could be that these numbers are pointing out some HIDDEN truths, stuff that clearly isn't obvious with observations. Or maybe something was flipped by accident.


            I say this all the time - stats and probability are why the internet, your cell phone, MPG video and a bunch of other things actually work.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

              I've heard some people say that Dun/Murphy's contracts aren't that bad.

              But does anyone truly realize that Murleavy will take up 39% of our cap room in 2010-2011?
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

                I just wish people would stop combining them into one ultra-whipping boy named Murphleavy.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

                  Originally posted by Mal View Post
                  I just wish people would stop combining them into one ultra-whipping boy named Murphleavy.


                  You are going to need a genie if you want that wish granted.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

                    That chart = worthless.

                    Murphy's contract = pathetic.

                    The fact that we acquired him after dealing with crazy contracts in the past (Croshere) = will tptb ever learn.
                    :thepacers
                    No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      I just wish people would stop combining them into one ultra-whipping boy named Murphleavy.
                      I wish they were only 1 player, then we'd only be soft at one position at a time.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers "Market Watch"

                        I took the time to contact Mr. Gearan regarding the offensive and defensive ratings and he sent me a pleasant and detailed response, with permission to post as much as needed here at PD. He makes a strong case for the numbers, and points out as I suspected that the USAGE numbers are there to balance against the ratings since they are a bit heavy on the efficiency side.

                        And give him credit, he's a Celtics fan taking this much time to respond to some no-name Pacers fan with a question.

                        Also, from the reference basketball-reference.com site, the glossery for offensive rating is as follows:
                        Offensive rating (available since the 1977-78 season in NBA); for players it is points produced per 100 posessions, while for teams it is points scored per 100 possessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper. I will point you to Dean's book for complete details.
                        And now the response to my email, I'll bold some highlights. It's long, but not repetitive. This is a nice detailed analysis of JO and Foster which is the kind of thing this thread started about in the first place.

                        Originally posted by Mr. Gearan
                        All excellent questions/comments, and they address out some of the statistical issues that many people in the field are grappling with. The offensive and defensive ratings stem from the work of Dean Oliver, (his book "Basketball on Paper" is considered the closest thing in basketball to Bill James: good read, you should pick it up if you do not already have it: http://www.basketballonpaper.com ),
                        and they are reported at this site which publishes numerous basic and advanced basketball stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/
                        You can click on the Player or Teams tab and get the info you want. Here's this year's Pacers page: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2007.html
                        Look under the Advanced stats section and you will see ORtg (off ensive rating), DRtg (defensive), and Usage.

                        Oliver's book has the actual formulae for these first 2 stats (they are pretty involve), and if you click on the Glossary over Advanced Stats you’ll get the Usage formula. But I think I can cover some of the main factors which influence the ratings of O’Neal and Foster in these surprising ways.

                        Although a misprint or reversed scale would be an easy solution to your questions, it's not the reason for the data as shown. The Offensive Rating is heavily (perhaps too heavily) weighted toward efficiency and Usage is an indicator of how involved that player is in the offense. Jermaine O'Neal is obviously a better offensive player than Jeff Foster, no one would argue that. However, efficiency is hurt substantially by poor shooting, and if you look at FG% of the 58 forwards who played enough games/minutes to qualify according to NBA.com, Jermaine O'Neal was 54th (.439), ahead of only Rudy Gay, Hedo Turkoglu, Rasual Butler, and Adam Morrison.

                        And if you throw him in just among the centers/power forwards, of those power forwards/centers in the league playing 25mpg or more over 70+ games, I believe O'Neal is dead last in shooting percentage. Turnovers also hurt efficiency/offensive rating, and this is another area that is a weakness for O’Neal being among the worst 10-15 forwards. O’Neal had a particularly bad year, but he has never gotten very high ORtgs.

                        Jeff Foster is helped out iIn ORtg because for the minutes he plays he’s one of the best offensive rebounders in the NBA. Foster’s offensive rating is actually the lowest that it has been in 4 years (http://www.basketball-reference.com/...fosteje01.html) because his shooting was way down. Foster is one of the NBA’s anomalies along with players such as Tyson Chandler (if you scroll down in the DraftExpress page to the Hornets profile you’ll see Chandler in a similar position on the graph) and David Lee. They have low Usage (because they are not the kind of offensive talents who can be go-to guy like O’Neal), and really their offense relies on high percentage shots, not being focused on by the defense and offensive rebounding.

                        Look at this comparison this past season: 22% of O’Neal’s total rebounds are offensive compare with 33% for David Lee, 35% for Tyson Chandler, and a whopping 43% for your man Foster. And as Indiana was the worst shooting team in the NBA this year, there were a lot of potential offensive rebounds. We do feel the generation of the ORtg does artificially elevate these low usage/high efficiency big men like Lee, Chandler, and Foster and that is one of the reasons we decided to show the Usage states as well.

                        Basically O’Neal and Foster are near inverse images offensively. O’Neal, a star player who is an offensive focal point because of his considerable ability but shoots a low percentage, turns the ball over a fair amount, and is an average offensive rebounder for a power forward/center. Foster is a seldom used player, who shoots a better (the 3 years prior to this year, he shot a very good percentage) percentage in his few attempts, does not turn the ball over (of course he does not touch it much), and is a tremendous offensive rebounder. Of course, if tomorrow the Pacers decided they would use Foster like O’Neal, Foster's shooting percentage would plummet, his turnovers skyrocket, and he’d likely be too tired to offensive rebound like he does. Again, Jeff Foster is no Jermaine O’Neal, but he does do his limited offensive job efficiently.

                        O’Neal and Foster are both good defensive players, and you see that in the graphic. O’Neal’s shot blocking and defensive rebounding puts him in a very elite class. In this regard, he is unquestionably a highly desirable player.

                        As far as the Usage stat, guards and wings tend to have higher usage because of how much they handle the ball and are involved in the offense compared with big men so O’Neal’s usage is notably high. Mostly better offensive players have the high usage stats, but this is not a one-to-one relationship by any means. Certainly the archetypal case of the “gunner,” “ball hog,” or more euphemistically “high volume shooter” argues that there can be guys who dominate the ball who should not as much.


                        Efficiency is certainly not the only mark of a player. Great players are often forced to be inefficient because the team needs them to take all the tough shots. Allen Iverson is one of the least efficient star players this league has ever seen (his offensive rating was mediocre most years, sometimes very bad), many players on his own teams in Philadelphia rated out better.

                        But no one could deny that he was the best offensive option that team had (Well, if pick up the book "Wages of Wins" by Berri et al. and you will find some who debate this). But your Pacers struggle with the same question the Sixers were always plagued with: is it good to build around an inefficient offensive player, no matter how great he is? Maybe the player is not to be faulted, maybe it’s the system or supporting cast, but whatever it is it leads to an offensively inefficient star player.

                        Most stats in basketball fail to sum up the whole truth, but improvements are being made by controlling for game pace and efficiency among other factors, but there is still much work to be done. The scores we presented provide a snap shot, not the complete picture, but I do think suggest that the Pacers are faced with a conundrum with O’Neal.

                        I think the view of Jermaine around the league may differ from how the members of your board feel (I’m a Celtics fan and an active blogger, so I know about over-valuing my own guys!). I think many people would think his $64M over the next 3 years is not a great value and would lay that mostly on his issue of offensive inefficiency. I have seen a huge range of opinion on him.

                        Feel free to post as much or as little of this long-winded explanation as you wish. If you want to pull me directly into the debate, let me know and I’ll join the fray!


                        Again, thanks to Paul for this outstanding response.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-12-2007, 03:52 AM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X