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

How The Pacers Got Where They Are

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

  • How The Pacers Got Where They Are

    The Pacers enter the 2008-09 season with a scent of new hope.

    They were 36-46 last year with Jermaine O’Neal and Jamaal Tinsley missing a significant chunk of time. After falling only one game out of the playoffs while playing shorthanded, should Pacer fans assume that the offseason upgrades at point and on the perimeter will translate into a winning record and a playoff berth?

    Let's peel the onion and the 2007-2008 season to find out.

    Pacers were 19-23 (.452) with O’Neal in the lineup, and 17-23 (.425) without him. They were 13-20 (.394) prior to his injury-enforced absence with him, and 6-3 after his return when he averaged 7.2 points and 4.8 rebounds in 19.2 minutes.

    They were 16-23 (.410) with Tinsley in the lineup, and a slightly better 20-23 (.465) without him.

    Indiana was 10-16 (.385) with both Jermaine and Jamaal in the lineup, 11-16 (.407) with neither player in the lineup, and 15-14 when just one or the other played.

    When J.O. played, but Tinsley did not, the Pacers were 9-7 (.563), and that included their 6-3 stretch to end the season. Prior to O’Neal's injury, the Pacers were 3-4 (.429) with just Jermaine and no Jamaal.

    When Tinsley played and O’Neal did not, the Pacers were 6-7 (.462).

    There's little doubt that there was a stretch during which this team was unrelentingly bad. In January and February, the Pacers were a combined 8-19 (.296). Thirteen of those games were played with both Jermaine and Jamaal out of the lineup, and Indiana was 4-9 (.308) in those games.

    The Pacers were 1-2 (.333) in that stretch when both played, 2-2 (.500) when just O’Neal played, and 1-6 (.143) when Tinsley, and not Jermaine, was in the lineup. They were 5-7 against losing teams in that period, 2-1 against teams at .500, and a horrific 1-11 (.083) against winning teams.

    Outside of those two months, the Pacers were 28-27 (.509). That includes a 7-17 (.292) record against winning teams, 1-2 against .500 teams, and 20-8 (.714) against losing teams. Over the full season, Indiana was 3-3 against .500 teams, 25-15 (.625) against losing teams, and a woeful 8-28 (.222) against winning teams.

    So, how important were Jermaine and Jamaal to last year's record?

    When both played, the team was worse than it's overall record at 10-16, but they played a higher percentage of those games against teams with winning records (54% vs. 51%), were 3-11 against teams .500 or better, and 7-5 against losing teams.

    When neither played the team was slightly more successful than when both played, with a record of 11-16. However, only 48% (13) of those games were played against winning teams, and they lost eleven of those thirteen.

    O’Neal’s record, 9-7, when playing without Tinsley is slightly skewed because eleven of those sixteen games were played against losing teams. The Pacers won eight of them, but were only victorious once in five tries against winning teams.

    Tinsley's record, 6-7, when playing without O’Neal is a little misleading because ten of the thirteen games were against winning teams. The Pacers were 5-5 in those games. Oddly, they were only 1-2 against losing teams.

    It appears that Jermaine and Jamaal, or just Jamaal by himself, made the Pacers more competitive against the better teams. It also appears as though the two together didn't translate into wins on the court, or a significant difference.

    The team was 16-20 (.444) when Tinsley started. They were 6-15 (.286) when Travis Diener started at the point, leaving them at 14-11 when "somebody else" started. That should bode well for the team this season since "somebody else" (T.J. Ford or Jarrett Jack) should be handling the starts.

    In looking at the opponent splits, there are some alarming facts that surface.

    The initial review of the splits against winning teams, .500 teams, and losing teams seems to indicate that the Pacers were a mediocre team that beat the teams they should, but were defenseless -- in more ways than one -- against good teams. However, there are some results that could be cause for concern in Indiana.

    The Pacers were 13-10 (.565) in March and April last year. That's a pretty positive trend, right?

    Not so fast. A closer look shows that Indiana was 13-2 against losing teams and 0-8 against winning teams during that stretch. Of those wins against losing teams, only the victories over Philly and Atlanta could be considered meaningful to the opponent.

    While that does take the luster off last year's finish, it also makes something else pop – Indiana’s mark against losing teams heading into March. Their record, 25-15, looks good overall, but if you remove the late season mark (13-2), where motivation and effort could be questioned, the Pacers were 12-13 against losing teams prior to March.

    So, while I believe that the Pacers have improved themselves with their offseason moves, it's appears it's possible that those transactions won't necessarily translate into more wins. Or, more to the point, that the 36-win figure from last year could arguably have been inflated by some late season "differences in priorities" between the Pacers and the teams they played.
    http://pacers.realgm.com/articles/14...here_they_are/
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.



  • #2
    Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

    I'm not sure if I get the point of this article. Sure missing Tinsley and O'neal directly related to the W-L column, but I don't understand how this relates to this season. Unless I'm mistakin Tinsley isn't Ford and J.O. isn't Hibbert or B-Rush.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

      Whoever researched that must've had alot of time to kill.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

        Originally posted by Erik View Post
        Whoever researched that must've had alot of time to kill.
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

          So, while I believe that the Pacers have improved themselves with their offseason moves, it's appears it's possible that those transactions won't necessarily translate into more wins. Or, more to the point, that the 36-win figure from last year could arguably have been inflated by some late season "differences in priorities" between the Pacers and the teams they played.

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          The last sentence refers to tanking by some teams. This occurs every year and thus is not
          a real factor from year to year relative to the Pacers W-L record.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

            Is it just me or could that information have been better expressed via a series of tables or some other visual display?
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

              if you were to go back 2 or 3 years and look at the pacers' win-loss record with tinsley in the lineup and without jo, the win % is above .500. this article is proves nothing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

                Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post
                I'm not sure if I get the point of this article. Sure missing Tinsley and O'neal directly related to the W-L column, but I don't understand how this relates to this season. Unless I'm mistakin Tinsley isn't Ford and J.O. isn't Hibbert or B-Rush.
                The point was that Ford isn't Tinsley, and Hibbert isn't JO, so if we're better off, should we actually expect a better record?

                Originally posted by Erik View Post
                Whoever researched that must've had alot of time to kill.
                Or they're just an absolute stud with Excel.

                Originally posted by owl View Post
                So, while I believe that the Pacers have improved themselves with their offseason moves, it's appears it's possible that those transactions won't necessarily translate into more wins. Or, more to the point, that the 36-win figure from last year could arguably have been inflated by some late season "differences in priorities" between the Pacers and the teams they played.


                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                The last sentence refers to tanking by some teams. This occurs every year and thus is not
                a real factor from year to year relative to the Pacers W-L record.
                The point was that it was indefinable. Yes, there are teams that tank every, but it's hard to quantify the effect. The most concerning fact is that almost 1/3 of their total wins came against teams "playing out the string". Over half of their wins against losing teams fell under that category. While it's impossible to prove whether or not there was tanking, there's little question that they made a lot of hay against these teams. That, plus the glaring disparity in performance against winning teams are a valid basis for questioning how "soft" those 36 wins were.

                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                Is it just me or could that information have been better expressed via a series of tables or some other visual display?
                Absolutely. The middle section of the article was brutal, but it was published at the last minute. For those who don't recognize it:

                http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...&postcount=102

                I was buried at work (my company's just been sold, and I'm waiting to here when or if I'll be losing my job), and Andrew wanted to use it to augment his projection. It was never really meant to be an article, so the edits were just to shave off the rough edges and make it readable.

                I'll admit that it didn't quite get there, but it was unexpected, I was flattered and didn't think everything through all the way. If I get another opportunity, I would hope to be a more compelling read.

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                if you were to go back 2 or 3 years and look at the pacers' win-loss record with tinsley in the lineup and without jo, the win % is above .500. this article is proves nothing.
                In the two years prior to last season, the Pacers were 6-15 (.286) when Tinsley played and O'Neal did not. With the 6-7 last season, that brought the record up to 12-22 (.353).

                More to the point, the article wasn't necessarily trying to prove anything. There was a discussion about how much the Pacers had improved, and the question came up about what impact Tinsley & JO had on the 36 wins. I researched it and decided that, while it was slightly more than I had originally thought, it was still relatively immaterial. However, it did lead me down "strength of schedule" (for lack of a better word) path, and it basically made me think that it could be harder to win 36 games this year than it was last.

                EDIT: I like numbers and statistics for support, but not as the be-all, end-all. I believe this team is better. I think this team played better Wednesday night than they did even during March & April last year, but the game was still a loss. This was not an attempt to run down last year's finish or this year's team. It was (originally) just a way to figure out how I should gauge success for the new squad. Essentially, I came to the conclusion that the team could finish with 36 or fewer wins, but it would still be possible for me to consider it a step forward.
                Last edited by count55; 11-01-2008, 11:12 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

                  Originally posted by Erik View Post
                  Whoever researched that must've had alot of time to kill.
                  My sentiments exactly.

                  Having said that, I have always thought a teams record in January and February is a much better indicator of how good the team is than any other month(s).

                  The reason is that in the beginning teams are pacing themselves for the grind of a long season...........playing hard only in the 4th qtrs of games especially on the road.

                  At the end of the seaosn lots of non playoff teams are preparing for the lottery and not trying as hard as they might otherwise. And even th etop teams are resting and not exerting lots of effort most nights in march and April unless they are battling for something tangible liek home court in teh last week of the season.

                  So teams with poor talent but strong wills to win like the Pacers usually do well early and late but not well at all in the middle when everyone else is giving a solid effort most nights.

                  That has a lot more to do with record disparity than JO and Tins' injury problems.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

                    Originally posted by Erik View Post
                    Whoever researched that must've had alot of time to kill.
                    What else is Tinsley supposed to do while he's waiting to be traded?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

                      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                      Is it just me or could that information have been better expressed via a series of tables or some other visual display?
                      I recommend Tufte.

                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        I think this team played better Wednesday night than they did even during March & April last year, but the game was still a loss. This was not an attempt to run down last year's finish or this year's team. It was (originally) just a way to figure out how I should gauge success for the new squad. Essentially, I came to the conclusion that the team could finish with 36 or fewer wins, but it would still be possible for me to consider it a step forward.
                        I think it's arguable whether or not they played better on Wednesday than in March/April.

                        As their defense is significantly better now, their offense was significantly better at the end of the season. The closeout game against the Knicks was the best example.

                        Everything O'Brien is currently preaching about was in practice by end of last season. The ball/player movement was superior and the offense did not get bogged down. The 67 FGA against the Pistons is 5 less than any game from last season. Numbers wise, we averaged over 107 pts game on 45.5% shooting/85 FGA for March/April.



                        They have a while before they get there, but I think our offense has a chance to be as good/better than last season's.

                        Our defense is already better than last season's, and has a chance to get even better.

                        Everything points toward the possibility of us being a better team than last year, but given our opponents/motivation for the bulk of season's end, I'm not sure we can use 36 wins as a true measuring point. No way to really calculate it, but the number may be closer to 30 wins.


                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        I recommend Tufte.

                        I was disappointed when I was unable to look inside.
                        Last edited by imawhat; 11-01-2008, 05:57 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: How The Pacers Got Where They Are

                          I just ran this through my quantitative string theory phd program for idiots. It asked for specific facts regarding the position of all 9 planets and the moon in relation to game start times. When I couldn't come through it just said FAIL.

                          My computer started smoking and crashed.

                          Then with a dead computer, Danny Granger appeared on my flat screen in a misty fog and said: "I will restore the pride" and everything faded to black.
                          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X