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 Big Plus-Minus thread

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

  • #16
    Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

    Game 9 - vs Toronto
    L 101-110

    0 JO
    0 Rush
    -1 Tinsley
    -2 Foster
    -3 Dunleavy

    -5 Granger
    -5 Murphy
    -8 Diener
    -12 Williams

    Limited minutes
    -9 Harrison


    Top three 5-man groups
    5 in 9:00 play
    Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
    5 in 1:15 play
    Diener-Rush-Granger-Murphy-Foster



    Worst 5-mans
    -5 in 3:15 play
    Diener-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Harrison
    -4 in 0:15 play
    Diener-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
    -3 in 3:00 play
    Tins-Dun-Granger-Williams-JO
    -3 in 1:15 play
    Diener-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Foster


    Big minute groups
    16:00 (1)
    Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
    9:00 (5)
    Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
    4:00 (-2)
    Tins-Rush-Dun-Murphy-Foster


    Interesting notes
    A few games ago I talked about JO having this string of bad games, but really in the last few he's been one of the top +/- guys.

    Seriously, no more Diener-Granger-Williams lineups. That's not a lot of strong decision making or ball handling. Did I mention not pairing Danny and Shawne?

    Another game and Diener shows up to finish it out. Again, did Tins foul out, was he gassed? A 6 pt game with :45 to play, Diener comes in and they go -4.

    I will say this, JOB did get his top 5 group (starters with Foster over Troy) in the game a couple of times where they didn't come through. For the game they were in the black, but they went -6 to start the 3rd and went -2 late in the 4th (just before Diener returned)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

      Game 10 - vs Utah
      W 117 - 97

      32 Williams
      23 Foster
      22 Tinsley
      20 JO
      19 Dunleavy

      8 Rush
      2 Daniels
      1 Harrison

      -6 Murphy
      -11 Granger

      Limited minutes
      -4 Owens
      -6 Diener


      Top three 5-man groups
      23 in 9:00 play
      Tins-Dun-Williams-JO-Foster
      7 in 2:30 play
      Tins-Dun-Granger-Foster-Harrison
      5 in 3:00 play
      Quis-Rush-Dun-Williams-Murphy


      Worst 5-mans
      -5 in 9:15 play
      Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
      -5 in 1:00 play
      Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Harrison
      -4 in 0:30 play
      Quis-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster

      Big minute groups
      9:15 (-5)
      Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
      9:00 (23)
      Tins-Dun-Williams-JO-Foster
      3:00 (5)
      Quis-Rush-Dun-Williams-Murphy


      Interesting notes
      -11 in a 20 pt win. Come on Granger, that's Ike territory.

      +23 in 9 minutes, obviously the first time anything close to that has happened on the year. More of that please. By the way, the 5 that did this is the top starters but with Shawne for Granger instead of Troy for Foster. Looking at Troy and Danny's +/- on the year is this really a surprise?

      More on that +23 group. They only went to it twice, in both cases it was Williams and Foster as the first guys off the bench, joining the starters for Danny and Troy as dual subs. They went +8 in the first and +15 in the 3rd. Those followed a +3 and a -10 by the group with Danny/Troy. Nuff said.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

        Game 11 - vs Lakers
        L 114 - 134

        6 Harrison
        -1 Dunleavy
        -4 Rush
        -5 Foster

        -10 Murphy
        -12 Daniels
        -15 Tinsley
        -16 Williams
        -16 Granger
        -24 JO

        Limited minutes
        -1 Diener
        -2 Sims


        Top three 5-man groups
        6 in 4:15 play
        Diener-Rush-Williams-Murphy-Hulk
        4 in 4:30 play
        Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Hulk
        4 in 1:30 play
        Tins-Quis-Dun-Foster-Hulk


        Worst 5-mans
        -11 in 9:15 play
        Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
        -6 in 1:00 play
        Tins-Rush-Granger-Williams-JO
        -5 in 1:30 play
        Tins-Granger-Williams-JO-Murphy
        -5 in 1:45 play
        Tins-Quis-Granger-Foster-Hulk

        Big minute groups
        8:30 (-11)
        Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
        5:30 (3)
        Tins-Granger-Williams-JO-Foster
        4:30 (4)
        Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Harrison


        Interesting notes
        This is the proof case for the +/- stat. We all remember this game as Bynum blowing up JO. Now look at JO's number, a horrid -24. That suggests that the stat sees a lot more than some give credit for.

        Following that, look at Hulk's numbers, including being a part of all 3 top 5-man groups. Clearly he was the better play for this game, whether JO was hurting or not.

        That crap pair of Danny and Shawne showed up again in 2 of the worst 5-mans. But go figure when they made it into a decent +3 group that played big minutes together. Maybe Tins-JO-Jeff helped a bit.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

          Game 12 - vs New Orleans
          W 105 - 93

          16 Harrison
          15 Granger
          8 Tinsley
          7 Dunleavy

          5 Daniels
          5 Murphy
          5 Williams
          3 Foster

          Limited minutes
          -4 Rush


          Top three 5-man groups
          7 in 3:45 play
          Tins-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Hulk
          4 in 3:00 play
          Tins-Dun-Granger-Foster-Hulk
          4 in 2:45 play
          Tins-Rush-Dun-Foster-Hulk


          Worst 5-mans
          -5 in 0:30 play
          Tins-Rush-Dun-Murphy-Foster
          -4 in 1:00 play
          Tins-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Foster


          Big minute groups
          19:45 (0)
          Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster
          3:45 (7)
          Tins-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Hulk
          3:15 (3)
          Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Hulk


          Interesting notes
          Well another Williams-Granger squad does well. Turning the corner? Or maybe not, also put up one of the worst 5-mans in the game.

          Not since game 4 vs the Clips have we seen 1 group play so much, and so much more than any other group. This time it was in a winning effort.

          Hulk backs up what we saw vs the Lakers. He's earning PT, or so it would seem. He's got 3 strong +/- outings on the year, and a ton of low minutes played games.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

            Game 13 - vs Dallas
            W 111 - 107

            7 Murphy
            6 Tinsley
            5 Dunleavy
            5 Williams

            1 Granger
            1 Harrison
            -1 Foster
            -1 Daniels

            Limited minutes
            -1 Rush
            -2 Diener


            Top three 5-man groups
            9 in 3:00 play
            Diener-Quis-Williams-Murphy-Hulk
            5 in 19:15 play
            Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster



            Worst 5-mans
            -5 in 0:45 play
            Diener-Quis-Granger-Murphy-Foster
            -4 in 2:45 play
            Tins-Quis-Williams-Foster-Hulk
            -4 in 2:30 play
            Diener-Dun-Williams-Murphy-Hulk

            Big minute groups
            19:15 (5)
            Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster
            7:45 (1)
            Tins-Quis-Granger-Murphy-Foster
            3:30 (1)
            Tins-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Foster


            Interesting notes
            2 strong games from Harrison and it's back to 11 minutes. 4 fouls, but wouldn't you want to ride him right into his 6 fouls, especially considering he had 3 blocks in the game.

            Diener had a weird game, part of the best and worst efforts. The difference in groups was Quis for Dun, not something you'd exactly expect. Some of it is probably PG ball handling I guess.

            One thing that started happening right after JO sat with injury, JOB started playing groups together for a lot more minutes. 2 games in a row with one 5 man getting nearly 20 minutes together. The bench needed to be shortened. So it wasn't JO being in or out in retrospect, but stabilizing the rotation that started turning things around.

            The 4 man of Tins-Granger-Murphy-Foster accounted for all 3 of the top minutes groups, and just among those 3 played 30:30 of the game. Again, stability.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

              Thanks for taking the time to do this, very interesting. I like the +/- stat and JOB said he likes it too. I made a similar more primitive post awhile back noting how awful Ike had been, and how well Harrison was doing. We'll see what happens when Ike gets back, but I really don't understand the love fest with him. Many consider him to be untouchable but want to trade Harrison for a slight upgrade over Diener. You have got to be kidding me. Based on performance so far Ike is the one who should be shipped out. Even though it was only 3 games, his stats jumped out in a very conclusive manner. Only big guy to be in the minus for the first 3 games (every one of his games so far).

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                12 more to go, plus a new game tonight. I just burned out, but I'll try to finish tonight.

                After that it will space more and I'll toss out things like 10 game subtotals. Actually I think I'll do that after I post game 15 (5-15 totals).

                Right now it's an archive where anyone can at least run the individual +/- numbers for a given set of games (DEC, in wins, when JO plays, etc) with them each posted separately. I really wanted that option myself the last few years.


                Yeah, I like Ike but those numbers are troubling. Given his size on defense and his problems with passing the ball you can see how he would be a problem. I mean Danny is running the same as he did last year, and at some point you must think there is something to that.

                Like Ike, there is a reason that Granger is so far in the red while the rest of the starters typically are way above him. It stops being "bad luck/situations" and starts being a trend.


                On the other side you see some of Hulk's games and realize (if you didn't just from seeing him play) that when he can stay on the court he can be a major factor. His best +/- games are ones that when you watched you thought great game from him tonight.


                JOB said Shawne was getting crunched out by numbers, and Ike is part of that. I agree with you, I'd move Ike now to address the BU PG situation while you still can. But then maybe the word is out when Bill Simmons even questions just how good Ike is ever going to be.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                  Seth, good work. I think that you should send a quick email to "Ask the Pacers" with a link to this post

                  I went through your +/- Stats, pulled all of the Top 5-Man groups and tallied how many times they appear in the list:

                  Dunleavy - 25
                  Tinsley - 24
                  Granger - 22
                  Foster - 16
                  Harrison - 16

                  JONeal - 14
                  Murphy - 14
                  Rush - 10
                  Shawne - 10
                  Marquis - 9
                  Deiner - 7
                  Ike - 1
                  Owens 1

                  Keep in mind that this is just strict tally and does not take into account the # of minutes or games they played. There has been 28 different 5 man combinations.

                  The only combinations that has been used more then once that has appeared in your Top 5-Man group is:

                  Dunleavy-Tinsley-Granger-Murphy-Foster ( used 3 times )
                  Dunleavy-Tinsley-Granger-JONeal-Foster ( used 2 times )
                  Dunleavy-Tinsley-Granger-Harrison-Marquis ( used 2 times )
                  Dunleavy-Tinsley-Granger-Harrison-Foster ( used 2 times )
                  Dunleavy-Murphy-Granger-Harrison-Foster ( used 2 times
                  )

                  At least based off of what we see above.....based off of the +/- stat....Dunleavy, Tinsley, Granger, Harrison and Foster is the best 5-man combo that we have.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 12-21-2007, 04:16 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                    Simmons called Ike out? When was that and what did he say?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Yeah, I like Ike but those numbers are troubling. Given his size on defense and his problems with passing the ball you can see how he would be a problem. I mean Danny is running the same as he did last year, and at some point you must think there is something to that.
                      That's a pretty small sample to be making judgments on. Let's see him in the game a little more first.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                        Cable, I like it. Someone taking on the load of extra research, basically exactly what I was hoping for.

                        Of course I have the full list of all 5-mans, but I hadn't even had time to look at something like "how many times is a player part of the top groups". I'm not sure I want to do the work, but I COULD turn them into per minute and then look at how many times a player was part of the 3 best groups, or part of any group that was at a certain level of per minute.

                        But really I like this more simple version for now. I mean I hate the 30 second run where a group goes +4 and looks like they won the game or something. Letting groups compete with more minutes helps offset that. Averaging per minute only exacerbates the "quick run" aspect.



                        Anthem - I understand that and agree to a degree. Let's keep in mind that the positive views of where his game is and what his impact has and will be this year are based on the same sample set.

                        The numbers only saw a few games, but that's true for the fans' opinion also. That's what I hate about stat bashers, they ignore the fact that opinions are formed by an uncertain formula inside a fan's head based on the exact same sample space.

                        So John Doe watches the game, sees the plays and says "good, bad, great, bad, okay, good, bad...", adds that up with a running total and comes out with "had a good/bad game".

                        And this gets worse when that initial judgement of each play is being offset by a bias, such as loving a player and giving more value to the good plays than the bad which leads to the natural result of fueling the fan's love of the player with the pseudo-justification that they are having great games rather than just mediocre ones (or vice versa if the player is hated).

                        I see a bad +/- and think "how did that happen" if I thought the player played well or if he put up great numbers. Just like if I think a player shot well and then I look at the box and see 4-19 I wonder how in the world I came up with my point of view.

                        What I don't do is just dismiss the stat as wrong. It's telling me to check my own POV. (edit - reading this sounds hostile toward you and it's not in the least, a tinge crept in on a more general stat-bashers view which is not what I considered your post to be)

                        And back to Ike, this applies because everyone loved what Ike showed in those first games and was looking to his return as a big bump. Maybe, but when he was out there before something was amiss.


                        +/- is NOT a cause-effect, you can't just read a perfect relationship between wins and the stat. But like other stats it is a view with some truth in it.


                        HIGH SCHOOL - Simmons in his trade rankings column listed both Danny and Ike as guys that are good deals now, but after they resign won't be due to their limited overall ability/potential. He added that Granger was the best of the bunch to go beyond that, thus leaving Ike behind so to speak. He included about 5-6 players besides those 2 IIRC.


                        I'll get back to the postings tomorrow. Holidays and all ya know.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-23-2007, 07:36 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                          Do you not like the Lenovo +/- stats? Excerpt below:

                          Player 1Player 2Player 3Player 4Player 5Team+-+/-Min+/- /MinG
                          J. O'Neal J. Foster J. Tinsley M. Dunleavy S. Williams Pacers 39 -12 27 11:34 2.334 4
                          J. O'Neal J. Foster J. Tinsley M. Dunleavy D. Granger Pacers 305 -286 19 144:52 .131 19
                          J. Foster J. Tinsley M. Dunleavy D. Granger S. Williams Pacers 58 -39 19 21:46 .872 5
                          J. O'Neal J. Foster J. Tinsley M. Dunleavy M. Daniels Pacers 45 -28 17 18:36 .913 4
                          T. Murphy J. Tinsley M. Dunleavy D. Harrison D. Granger Pacers 59 -43 16 22:32 .709 7


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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                            One thing I've noticed on the Lenovo stats, which only show top 50 combinations, is that our 'default' starting line-up....JO, JT, Murphy, Mike, Danny...does not make the top 50....so they are at least only +3 or below.

                            P.S. I have shamelessly stolen your 'big thread' terminology for another thread.


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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Cable, I like it. Someone taking on the load of extra research, basically exactly what I was hoping for.

                              Of course I have the full list of all 5-mans, but I hadn't even had time to look at something like "how many times is a player part of the top groups". I'm not sure I want to do the work, but I COULD turn them into per minute and then look at how many times a player was part of the 3 best groups, or part of any group that was at a certain level of per minute.

                              But really I like this more simple version for now. I mean I hate the 30 second run where a group goes +4 and looks like they won the game or something. Letting groups compete with more minutes helps offset that. Averaging per minute only exacerbates the "quick run" aspect.
                              NP....you're taking your time to go through every game to pull these stats...the least I can do is to do a quick tally of you results .

                              The good news is that 3 of the 5 players that regularly appear in the "top 5" list ( Tinsley.....sort of....Dunleavy and Granger ) are fairly durable when it comes to remaining healthy.....the bad news is that the 2 remaining players ( Foster and Harrison...as of late ) has been hampered by recurring injuries.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                                Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                                Do you not like the Lenovo +/- stats? Excerpt below:
                                No, just unaware. I could be redoing a ton of readily available for free work for all I know. I just had a bug up the rear to try it and in the past couldn't find some answers I wanted, and here we are. I've gone too far and ticked off Shade too much to turn back now.

                                I think we get that it's not the answer to all questions, it's just A stat, one of many, and this is a nice way to archive it. Just like the Utah thing or the PER or any other type of measure. Heck I'd be fine with them all being thrown into a monster sized STATATRONIC thread even.

                                I just wanted to get some of these numbers documented in some way, just out of general Pacers interest. Especially per game for TREND interests.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X