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

Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

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

  • Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

    http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/10/...ng-the-pacers/

    Predicting the Pacers

    October 22, 2008 · 10 Comments

    A few days ago Henry Abbott - of TrueHoop - stated the following in a story about the Josh Childress experience in European basketball:
    If it really is true — that little things that win games are more valued in Europe — then that confirms just about every negative stereotype of American basketball development. And it fits perfectly with the message from just about every new-breed statistical expert: That scoring is overvalued here, at the expense of other things that are hugely important but less obvious.
    Pacer Pessimism
    If you can imagine, these words were floating about ESPN.com. And with these words in the air, Chris Broussard decides that the Indiana Pacers are the worst team in the Eastern Conference this year. Okay, I am not sure Abbott posted his comment before Broussard offered his thoughts on the Pacers. Still, let’s imagine that despite Abbott’s argument (and this is something he said before), Broussard still picked Indiana to finish 15th out of fifteen teams in the East.
    And how is this pick defended? Here is what Broussard said in ESPN’s preview of the Indiana Pacers:
    Jim O’Brien is a good coach, but he needs more to work with. Not one Pacer has ever averaged 20 points a game. The only other team in the league you can say that about is Portland.
    This statement suggests that the lack of a major scorer in Indiana - in Broussard’s view - dooms the Pacers.
    To be fair, Broussard is not the only one down on Indiana. The following writers - listed with their ranking and comments - picked Indiana to finish in the bottom three in the East:
    Chris Sheridan (ranked14th): Hard to decide which of Larry Bird’s decisions was worse: Trading Jermaine O’Neal for a bag of spare parts or benching Jamaal Tinsley at the start of camp rather than allowing him to display whatever value he has to potential suitors.
    Ric Bucher (ranked 14th): Dear Larry: Loved you as a player. Liked you as a coach. As a GM … Did I mention I loved you as a player?
    Marc Stein (ranked 13th): Don’t know how Jim O’Brien got 36 wins out of the Pacers last season. And don’t think he’ll be able to get that many out of them this season, with almost all of the East’s non-playoff teams making upgrades.
    Jon Barry (ranked 13th): There’s been a serious change of culture in Indy, helped further with T.J. Ford now at the point. But the bottom line is there’s still not enough here for this team to get in the playoffs.
    Jalen Rose (ranked 13th): This team is in total rebuild mode in terms of roster, image and fan base. T.J. Ford and Jarrett Jack will push the tempo to go with the scoring of Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy. One key question: Can they trade Jamaal Tinsley?
    Although every other writer participating in ESPN’s preview ranked Indiana higher, the average ranking of all the writers only placed two teams in the East below the Pacers (the Nets and Knicks were ranked lower). In sum, a number of writers are clearly pessimistic about the Pacers. And I find this to be more than just a bit odd.
    Where Indiana Has Been and Where They Are Going
    To see why this odd, let’s go back a few months. The Pacers finished the 2007-08 season with the following marks:
    Wins: 36
    Offensive Efficiency: 103.45 points per 100 possessions
    Defensive Efficiency: 104.84 points per 100 possessions
    Efficiency Differential: -1.40
    Summation of Wins Produced: 37.2
    In terms of wins, the Pacers ranked 9th in the East and missed the playoffs. Efficiency differential, though, ranked Indiana 8th. In other words, if we repeated the 2007-08 season, we would expect Indiana to make the post-season.
    Of course, we are not repeating the 2007-08 season. Indiana has made changes to their roster and these differences should impact what the Pacers will ultimately achieve in 2008-09.
    Before reviewing the changes, let’s just make it clear - contrary to Marc Stein’s contention - the 36 wins the team achieved last year can be connected back to the players on this team.
    As Table One reports, about 35 of this team’s Wins Produced can be linked back to the play of Jeff Foster, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, and Danny Granger. And all of these players will be returning in 2008-09.
    The following players - who played at least 500 minutes last season — will not be joining this quartet (with Wins Produced and WP48 - Wins Produced per 48 minutes - reported):
    Kareem Rush: 0.0 Wins Produced, -0.001 WP48
    Ronald Murray: -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.005 WP48
    Jermaine O’Neal: -0.4 Wins Produced, -0.017 WP48
    Shawne Williams: -1.4 Wins Produced, -0.070 WP48
    David Harrison: -2.8 Wins Produced, -0.189 WP48
    In addition, Indiana appears to want Jamaal Tinsley (2.2 Wins Produced and 0.083 WP48) to play someplace else this next season.
    When we look at these six players, we see four who offered production in the negative range. And the other two were below average (average WP48 is 0.100). In sum, none of the departing players were really helping the Pacers last year. In fact, Indiana is better off with some of these players in a different uniform.
    Okay, enough of the subtractions. Here are the veteran players - who played at last 500 minutes last season– the Pacers are adding:
    Jarrett Jack: 4.6 Wins Produced, 0.098 WP48
    T.J. Ford: 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.160 WP48
    Rasho Nesterovic: 3.2 Wins Produced, 0.104 WP48
    As one can see, the three main veteran additions to this team are each average or above average.
    In addition to the new veterans, Indiana also selected Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush in the draft (two players who were about average — for an NBA draft pick — in college last season). Although Hibbert and Rush will probably not help much, they probably won’t hurt much either. At least, it’s not expected that the rookie’s production of wins will drift into the negative range.
    Heeding Hollinger
    When we compare what the Pacers have added to what the team lost, it’s hard to see how this team dropped towards the bottom of the conference. Yet several of the experts at ESPN reached this conclusion.
    One should note that not all the ESPN experts reached this conclusion. John Hollinger’s forecast differed from his fellow writers at ESPN. Hollinger thinks the Pacers are the 7th best team in the Eastern Conference. In sum, he thinks Indiana has gotten relatively better.
    In the past I have noted that Hollinger and I agree that teams should be evaluated in terms of efficiency differential (where we disagree is on how to move from the team to the player). Although I don’t know this for sure, I think Hollinger begins the process of forecasting the next season by considering where a team finished the previous campaign. So when Hollinger creates the forecast of the Pacers, he starts with a team that is just a bit below average. And since he concludes the team is better, he must think - as I conclude - that the additions Indiana has made trump the subtractions (not sure how PERs gets Hollinger to that conclusion, but I think I have accurately captured his approach).
    Apparently, though, the other writers at ESPN are not listening to Hollinger or paying much attention to what we saw in 2007-08. These writers see a roster in Indiana that is devoid of anybody who averaged 20 points per game last season and conclude that without a major scorer, the Pacers cannot compete in the resurgent Eastern Conference.
    Projecting the Pacers
    Again I return to the words of Abbott noted at the onset of this column. Scoring is simply over-emphasized by many NBA analysts. When we look at all the stats - whether we use the Wages of Wins measures, the work of Dean Oliver, of the adjusted plus-minus approach of Wayne Winston - we see that there is more to wins than points scored per game. And I think all the stats tell us the Pacers are going to get better.
    How much better? Well, I still think the East will be led by Boston, Detroit, Orlando, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. After these five, I think Toronto and Indiana have the best chance at the post-season. In sum, I think Indiana has a good chance of seeing playoff basketball next April. At least I think the chances of that outcome exceed the probability the Pacers will finish - as Broussard contends - as the worst team in the Eastern Conference.
    - DJ
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

    i dunno what any of this garbage means but all those writers can go suck a...
    Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

    Passion. Pride. Pacers.

    It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
    #31 & Only

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

      I've seen this somewhere before...

      This is stuff that is obvious to everyone, IMO.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        I've seen this somewhere before...

        This is stuff that is obvious to everyone, IMO.
        Obvious to everyone who doesn't write for ESPN, apparently.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

          Originally posted by Pacers4Life View Post
          i dunno what any of this garbage means but all those writers can go suck a...
          They were actually pretty kind to us, saying we were in the 6-7 range in the East with Toronto. On the other hand, the ESPN guys had us at 13th, ahead of only the Nets and Knicks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

            15th is ridiculous. I'm not a sunshiner, but I'm definitely not all doom and gloom either. 6th-7nd seems a little positive to me, but not completely out of the realm of possibilies, while 13-15 seems rather unrealistic to me.
            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

              I hate using "fuzzy math" to justify that we are not going to suck, but it is nice to hear someone say that we will be a decent team.

              Anyway, ESPN only cares about all-stars and large markets. Why should I hold any of their previews or analysis with any merit?
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

                ESPN is as qualified to talk about sports as MTV is to talk about music.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

                  Anyway, ESPN only cares about all-stars and large markets. Why should I hold any of their previews or analysis with any merit?
                  Like their new LeBron commercial where he broke a copier...

                  Funny, but I think anyone in a sports uniform could play that part...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Wages of Wins Pacers Preview

                    Originally posted by Wage View Post
                    ESPN is as qualified to talk about sports as MTV is to talk about music.
                    Actually, I think ESPN does a pretty good job with most sports. It's mainly their NBA coverage that I have a problem with. Even then, it's not that I dislike their NBA guys across the board. I think Chad Ford does a pretty good job. Hollinger, even though he's a bit too much of a stat geek for me, does a pretty good job of paying attention to the entire league. I also love them having Hubie Brown and Van Gundy as analysts.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X