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

A closer look at the free throw disparity

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

  • A closer look at the free throw disparity

    I was going to post this in the last post-game thread but it started growing and growing so I figured I'd make my own thread about it. One of the last posts in that thread referred to how bad the FT disparity has been the last few games. I couldn't agree more. Without even looking, I was pretty sure we'd be dead last in the league in that stat, and it looks like that's a fact:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/by..._2008&sort=237

    -Over 18 games we've shot 129 less FT's than our opponent, for a -7.1 differential/game.

    -Over the last 4 games, we've shot 71 FT's to our opponents' 148... a difference of 77, or a ridiculous -19.25/game.

    -We've shot more FT's than our opponent in only 4 games this season (only 2 of which were a significant margin).

    -We have not attempted 30 or more FT's in any game thus far. We have given up 30 or more FT's in 6 games. Of those 6, we have given up more than 40 FT's twice.

    We currently attempt the 3rd most FGA/game of any team (86.3), and have the 6th best FGA/game differential (+2.7). Since more possessions inherently *should* lead to more chances at FT's, it must mean we're shooting more perimeter shots per game (differential) than our opponents. Indeed, we are #7 in the league in 3PA/game differential (+2.5), behind the Cavs (+2.9), Spurs (+4.6), Blazers (+4.6), Hawks (+5.9), Magic (+9.7 (!) ), and Knicks (+13.3 (!!) ).

    I wondered if those six teams also see the same FT disparity we see, and got some mixed results. Below is those teams' FT/game differential, followed by their team FT%, and their league rank in FT%...

    Knicks: -2.0 ___ 78.6% ___ 6th
    Magic: +6.7 ___ 71.6% ___ 30th
    Hawks: +0.2 ___ 75.0% ___ 25th
    Blazers: +0.7 ___ 76.8% ___ 13th
    Spurs: +0.3 ___ 74.7% ___ 26th
    Cavs: +2.0 ___ 77.5% ___ 11th
    Pacers: -7.1 ___ 78.1% ___ 8th

    Obviously, the Magic and Spurs get most of their FTs from their dominant bigs plus Tony Parker, but it causes them to suffer in FT%. Of all the teams listed, the Knicks play the style closest suited to the Pacers, and even though they're in the negative differential, it's still not nearly as bad as -7.1.

    I'm not sure there's really a point in all of this... I got sidetracked here at work while typing it and I have to clock out & leave now. I just thought some of these stats were interesting, and even though the Pacers deserve to be in the negative, I really think -7.1 is a bit on the ridiculous side.

    Btw, love the new site design!

  • #2
    Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

    On FGA differential, it's important to keep in mind that more FTA's mean fewer FGA's for the opponents. If it's a shooting foul, the FGA only is counted if the basket is made. If it's a loose ball foul in the bonus, then, in many cases, there's no FGA on that possession. Therefore, you have to be careful about using FGA differential as a surrogate for possession differential. I'd have to chart it to be precise, but I'd feel pretty confident that the additional 7.1 FTA's that the opponent are getting is costing them, statistically, 2 to 3 FGA's per game.

    82games.com has some good numbers, but they're aggregate. Through 17 games, the Pacers have averaged 97 Offensive Possessions per game and 96 Defensive Possessions per game. The Pacers have an Offensive Turnover % of 16 vs. a Defensive % of 15. That costs the Pacers a net one possession per game, so the net possessions are even at 81 between the Pacers and their opponents. (That is possessions that end in a made basket, a missed basket, or FT's.)

    As to the jumpers, it's certainly true, but I'm not sure to what degree. While we definitely take more 3pters, in total and as a % of total attempts, than our opponent, 82games.com indicates that only 65% of our shots are "Jump" shots, while 69% of our opponents shots are "Jump". Problem is, I'd need to see game by game numbers so that I could compare the charting to the FT differentials. Also, this is susceptible to the same skewing that I noted in the first paragraph. It's almost certain that these percentages are based on official FGA's. If that's the case, many of the fouls were probably taken trying to prevent "close" shots, thereby suppressing their numbers.

    The Pacers, as currently constituted, are probably going to be below average in FTA's. They really only have two players that I would consider "good" at getting into the lane on a regular basis: TJ Ford and Marquis Daniels. Unfortunately, neither of those guys is particularly effective at creating contact and drawing fouls. We really don't have anybody who can "move" the defense, and the more you "move" the defense, the more fouls you're likely to draw. Therefore, the focus has to be on defensive position and reducing fouls. At least, if you want to reduce the differential.

    However, in just checking numbers, I found something kinda funky. In our 11 losses, our opponents have shot 308 FT's, for an average of 28 even. In our 7 wins, our opponents have shot 200 FT's, or 28.6 per night. Our FTA differential was -5.1 in the wins, -8.5 in the losses. While that appears to fly in the face of my comment about the key being reducing Opp FTA's, there are two huge outliers in the victories. In our wins against Boston and LA, they shot 35 and 45 FTA's, respectively. (As a side note, we have not shot more than 29 FTA's in any game this year.) Take those two out, and the opponents have only averaged 24 shots a night in our other 5 wins.

    There appears to be no magic bullet in the numbers. I still think that the last few games has to do with a combination of better competition, getting more spread out due to more effective opponent shooting, particularly from 3, and just being out of position. We may have to pick our poison, shrink the defensive perimeter, and let them have more uncontested three's and deep two's.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

      I don't know if you could study this or not without spending hours debating the operational definitions involved, but I wonder about free throw differentials for teams without a dominant star or marquee talent. There have been multiple plays this season where Granger or Daniels or Rush or Ford has driven to the rim, had their shot altered or blocked, and I've thought "If that was LeBron, Wade, Kobe, etc., they'd be on the free throw line right now."

      Since the Pacers lack those types of players, I wonder how many calls they don't get.

      In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that star treatment from referee's is my least favorite thing about the NBA.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        They really only have two players that I would consider "good" at getting into the lane on a regular basis: TJ Ford and Marquis Daniels. Unfortunately, neither of those guys is particularly effective at creating contact and drawing fouls. We really don't have anybody who can "move" the defense, and the more you "move" the defense, the more fouls you're likely to draw.
        Daniels has the Vern Flemming-esque ability to fininish in traffic, but he twists around to avoid contact while still maintaining balance and control.

        Ford has the Travis Best-esque ability to get to the rim but his prayer (or shot, if you're being generous) is easy to block or alter without fouling, so I don't think he gets a sympathetic whistle from the officials. And when his layup isn't contested, he doesn't always finish at a high percentage anyway.

        The rest of the team stands still and shoots, so they aren't getting to the line.

        I get tired of the pretense that the foul discrepancy is attributed to unjust officiating. Its a reflection of style of play, aggression/ softness, and that we have few players consistently capable of drawing fouls - especially shooting fouls - and getting to the line.

        So I find myself agreeing with the Count's premise for the 55,555,555th time... this is really an outcome of our personnel and strategy and not necessarily bias. Although, the bias may confirm the personnel and strategy issue and perhaps magnify it slightly.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          Daniels has the Vern Flemming-esque ability to fininish in traffic, but he twists around to avoid contact while still maintaining balance and control.

          Ford has the Travis Best-esque ability to get to the rim but his prayer (or shot, if you're being generous) is easy to block or alter without fouling, so I don't think he gets a sympathetic whistle from the officials. And when his layup isn't contested, he doesn't always finish at a high percentage anyway.

          The rest of the team stands still and shoots, so they aren't getting to the line.

          I get tired of the pretense that the foul discrepancy is attributed to unjust officiating. Its a reflection of style of play, aggression/ softness, and that we have few players consistently capable of drawing fouls - especially shooting fouls - and getting to the line.

          So I find myself agreeing with the Count's premise for the 55,555,555th time... this is really an outcome of our personnel and strategy and not necessarily bias. Although, the bias may confirm the personnel and strategy issue and perhaps magnify it slightly.
          Jay, where can I get a pair of those rose colored glasses that you are wearing?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

            John Conlee.

            I borrowed his back when Lee Corso was coaching the Hoosiers. But I returned them for the Sam Wyche era and when Woodson slipped away to Purdue. Tried to dig them out while Anthony Thompson was there, but haven't needed them since.

            But these rose colored glasses
            That I'm looking through
            Show only the beauty
            'Cause they hide all the truth

            Seems to me that my current glasses show only the truth and hide the beauty. Not sure they really are rose-colored?
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              John Conlee.

              I borrowed his back when Lee Corso was coaching the Hoosiers. But I returned them for the Sam Wyche era and when Woodson slipped away to Purdue. Tried to dig them out while Anthony Thompson was there, but haven't needed them since.

              But these rose colored glasses
              That I'm looking through
              Show only the beauty
              'Cause they hide all the truth

              Seems to me that my current glasses show only the truth and hide the beauty. Not sure they really are rose-colored?
              One of my all time favorite songs. So, where do I get those truth glasses?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A closer look at the free throw disparity

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                I get tired of the pretense that the foul discrepancy is attributed to unjust officiating. Its a reflection of style of play, aggression/ softness, and that we have few players consistently capable of drawing fouls - especially shooting fouls - and getting to the line.

                So I find myself agreeing with the Count's premise for the 55,555,555th time... this is really an outcome of our personnel and strategy and not necessarily bias. Although, the bias may confirm the personnel and strategy issue and perhaps magnify it slightly.
                I think that there are major things that influence the way officials call games. These are, strictly speaking, biases, but probably should not be considered nefarious. I have no statistical data to back these impressions up, but they are based on watching the NBA for 30 years now. You're welcome to discount them as you like, but I would be surprised if other veteran NBA watchers would really disagree with them.

                These are, in no particular order, as follows:

                1. The flow of the game: A team that is on a roll will tend to get the benefit of a whistle (or a no whistle). This most often happens on the defensive end. If a team is in a run, and shutting down the opponent consistently, they will be less likely to be called for a foul. An example from the Lakers game: With 1:27 left in the third, Ariza tipped the ball away from Danny. Danny chased it down and was about to control it, when Ariza came over, clearly threw his shoulder into Danny, knocking him away, picked up the ball, went down and dunked to make it a 10-0 run. It was a pretty obvious foul out in the wide open, but no call. (I should note that when the Pacers were making their comeback, there were a couple of "no calls" that certainly would've been whistled on the P's had they occurred during the Laker run.)

                2. The expectations of the officials (and the players and fans): This covers reputations and quality of teams. The more physical a team is considered to be, the more physical they'll be allowed to be. If a team blocks a lot of shots, then they'll get the benefit of the doubt on goal tends and minor contact.

                As to the quality of the teams, if there's a large differential, then it will influence the expectations. The good team will be expected to make good plays, and the bad team will be expected to screw up. The Pacers benefitted from this throughout the '90's and early 00's, but they're on the flip side of it now. (BTW...both sides know this, and act accordingly. Good teams expect to get calls, bad teams don't.)

                3. The quality of the player: Again, reputation. If LeBron James makes an unbelievable play, everyone just says, "Wow!" If, say, Stephen Graham, does, then people assume that it couldn't have been on the up and up. If Kobe misses a bunny in traffic, he was probably fouled. If Marquis does, then he may or may not have been.

                These last two are primarily the result of the speed and scope of the game. Even with three officials, it's difficult for them to see everything. Even if they're in position, they often have to be looking at the right place at the right time. Therefore, there are a lot of times they're calling what they think they see, or what they assume just happened.

                However, I believe that officials will call what they clearly see the vast majority of the time. An example would be Roy's block of Kobe the other night. He was clearly set, he kept his hands up, and the officials who saw it had no choice but to not call a foul.

                Yes, bad calls get made. Yes, reputations and qualities of teams and players have an influence on things like FT differential. However, I think it is very minor, and if your team is giving up too many free throws, then the solution will lie in improving your defense and committing fewer fouls..not in some perceived injustice being perpetrated upon you.

                Comment

                Working...
                X