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

The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

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

  • The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

    Lots of threads on this site focus on the value of JO or any given player to the Pacers. Maybe the stats below will shed some light.

    After the Jazz game, I was surfing the media, and came across an article explaining a tool the Jazz use to evaluate their players. We've all heard JOB talk about the plus/minus for the Pacers players. I've followed that +/- stat myself. It's main problem, to me, is that any player's +/- depends on who was on the floor with him while he was getting his minutes.

    The Utah Jazz use a formula devised by owner Larry Miller to evaluate NBA players' value. The advantage I see here is that to some extent it isolates a player's performance from his teammates'. But it's still a simple enough calculation, and gives some insight on player performance, either as a one-game snapshot, or used as a running average.

    How the Metric is determined: Add up points, rebounds, steals, blocks and assists. Subtract fouls, turnovers and shots taken (FGAs). Divide by minutes played.

    These are Danny Granger's numbers, for example, with a '1st ten games' number, and a column each for games 11 and 12..

    Granger1st 10gm 11gm 12
    Points1781722
    Assists1931
    Boards6069
    Blocks 1311
    Steals1000
    PosSubTot2802733
    Shots1411117
    T/Os2610
    Fouls4033
    NegSubTot2071520
    Minutes3432935
    Index.213.414.371



    Below is the grid for all Pacers players, all 12 games so far. A couple of guys' minutes are so limited that the numbers aren't much use statistically.

    SeasonPositiveNegativeSeason
    Points AssistsBoardsBlocksStealsS'TotShotsT/OFoulsS'TotDiffMins Index
    Granger21723751510340169274624298407.241Granger
    Dunleavy1903174293061551523193113396.285Dunleavy
    O'Neal1323171145253134313820350301.166O'Neal
    Tinsley1449744217304145323621391390.233Tinsley
    Murphy1051756231837792310974212.349Murphy
    Foster77161064921262534101111301.369Foster
    Williams8710303813866132410335188.186Williams
    Daniels72918491126512108725162.154Daniels
    Rush441010167147812674137.029Rush
    Diogu41313126028610441670.229Diogu
    Diener42188127147715692131.015Diener
    Harrison575271671123714439418161.112Harrison
    Owens1037022262 4121034.294Owens
    Graham401005210323.667Graham
    Sims011002002209.000Sims



    This shows a running average for each player. Note Granger's improvement through the last couple of games. Ditto Harrison and some others. I think this might be more interesting as we get further into the season.

    ThruGame 10Game 11Game 12
    Granger.213.228.241
    Dunleavy.288.281.285
    O'Neal.175.166.166
    Tinsley.217.216.233
    Murphy.336.339.349
    Foster.333.351.369
    Williams.143.203.186
    Daniels.174.160.154
    Rush.068.061.029
    Diogu.229.229.229
    Diener.049.015.015
    Harrison.033.072.112
    Owens.294.294.294
    Graham.667.667.667
    Sims-.125.000.000


    This may be a thread only numbers crunchers can love, but I thought there was some value here. And since I've never posted charts like these, I HOPE TO HECK the formatting doesn't all go to s*** . I previewed them, swear I did.


    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  • #2
    Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

    and what would be a realistic number for a good performance?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

      I always wondered how the Jazz managed to get their entire team looking like one machine the way they do. I hope Larry Bird is paying attention to this thread.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

        This a valuable tool. Thanks for bringing it to this board. By the way, I think it would also be interesting to add a salary component to the stat. Granger, for example, would look even better.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

          What is a good number?

          I did a calculation on a 'team metric'...basically taking total team positives, subtracting total team negs, and dividing by total minutes played by the players. Only have numbers for games 10 thru 12:

          game 10 -- Utah, W 117-97 -- team metric .329
          game 11 -- LA, L 134-114 -- team metric .250
          game 12 -- NOH, W 105-93 -- team metric .325

          I don't think there can be a fixed 'good' number. A low-scoring win could yield worse numbers than a high-scoring loss. It would depend on the other team's performance. The value of the metric would seem to be that it shows one player's strengths relative to the other players...they all played in the same game, so a .187 number for player X in that game when player Y has a .322 tells you something.

          The running average, all games, for the team metric is .224. That would be a good number to compare to the same number for all other teams (I'm not going there). And it should be an indicator of performance.over the course of the season.


          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

            That is all well and good, and I don't intend to sound like I'm knocking it, but where in that formula does a player's importance DEFENSIVELY come into play?

            There is a lot more to defense than steals and blocks, you know.

            Seems to me that any "formula" that ignores defense is....well, offensive.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
              That is all well and good, and I don't intend to sound like I'm knocking it, but where in that formula does a player's importance DEFENSIVELY come into play?

              There is a lot more to defense than steals and blocks, you know.

              Seems to me that any "formula" that ignores defense is....well, offensive.
              I unoffendedly agree. Evidence to the contrary, I am not a stat-hoor. You can never quantify the intangible. For instance, did the leader of the team display a bad attitude and negatively impact morale? Did Granger pick up all those extra fouls (vs Dunleavy) partly because he's tasked to guard the opponent's chief scoring threat (something JOB wouldn't ask Dunleavy to do)?

              It's all relative. It's a quick little down-and-dirty tool, and offer some improvement to the plus/minus. No one publishes deflection stats unfortunately.

              One could view the foul total as a contrary defensive indicator nevertheless. Are you moving your feet, or just slapping as the guy blows by you?


              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                Here's the Pacers Plus-Minus for comparison.

                http://www.nba.com/pacers/stats/plus_minus.html


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                  What has the most significance for me though is the five man Lenovo plus/minus stats.

                  http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo...=9&team=Pacers

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    What has the most significance for me though is the five man Lenovo plus/minus stats.

                    http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo...=9&team=Pacers

                    There's a 12-game plus/minus from pacers.com at:

                    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0708.html

                    I don't know why they won't update the other link.

                    Yes, I like that Lenovo stat page...again they're behind the curve tho, and only updated thru 11 games...the Chinese gov't bought Lenovo you know. I think that's why.


                    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                      Larry Miller using that system explains a lot about his relationship with AK.
                      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                        The numbers for the last game, BTW.

                        Game 12vs Hornets --
                        W 105 - 93


                        Points AssistsBoardsBlocksStealsS'TotShotsT/OFoulsS'TotDiffMinsIndex
                        Granger221910331703201335.371Granger
                        Dunleavy184700291610171237.324Dunleavy
                        O'NealDNPDNPDNPO'Neal
                        Tinsley18133 02361722211538.395Tinsley
                        Murphy233911371615221538.395Murphy
                        Foster8313112660281836.500Foster
                        Williams2040065106016.000Williams
                        Daniels4020174206112.083Daniels
                        Rush0000002024-46-.667Rush
                        DioguDNPDNPDNPDiogu
                        DienerDNPDNPDNPDiener
                        Harrison101411176039822.364Harrison
                        OwensDNPDNPDNPOwens
                        GrahamDNPDNPDNPGraham
                        SimsDNPDNPDNPSims


                        [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                          Why is just taking a shot a negative? I think that should be missed shots.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                            Why is just taking a shot a negative? I think that should be missed shots.
                            Points total is one of the factors 'above the line'. Total FGAs are 'below the line' number. Just an efficiency check. Notice that FTAs aren't even factored in. Bottom line I guess is the more points you have, on the fewest attempts, the higher your number.


                            [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Utah Metric: How valuable is player X?

                              Kester, this is interesting. Thanks for posting it.

                              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                              That is all well and good, and I don't intend to sound like I'm knocking it, but where in that formula does a player's importance DEFENSIVELY come into play?

                              There is a lot more to defense than steals and blocks, you know.

                              Seems to me that any "formula" that ignores defense is....well, offensive.

                              OK, rise to the challenge here. How can or should defense be quantified? Basketball stats do a good job of quantifying offense, but measures of defense are weak.

                              The problem is that good basketball defense results in nothing happening -- and nothing cannot be measured. Steals and blocks are the only measures of defense that are collected (unless you want to count defensive rebounds). Other acts of effective defense: shots deflected, shots prevented, passes prevented or delayed or stolen, floor position preempted, etc. are too difficult to measure. We can't know, when an opponent misses, whether he missed because someone got up in his face, or because he missed on his own.

                              About the only good measure on defense that could be collected that isn't already is 24-second shot clock violations.

                              It seems the best way to get at good defensive performance is with comparative data: us versus them. If we get 40 rebounds and they get only 30, then we outperformed them on the boards. The simple numerical advantage is equally meaningful in a 73-70 game or a 114-111 game. Or it might be better to compare each team's performance against us with their season averages against all teams. Either way, the opposing players' offensive stats are as good a measure of our defense as we can find.

                              This could be done on a player-by-player basis, too, but would be a lot of work.
                              Last edited by Putnam; 11-23-2007, 10:08 PM.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X