Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The McMurphy Phenomena

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

  • The McMurphy Phenomena

    A few years ago when we acquired Troy Murphy, I recall reading a Golden State fan's description of him. Basically, the guy said he fills the box score but helps you lose games. I had not seen Troy play...so I pretty much ignored this poster. Well, I think either through logic or intuition this guy knew what he was talking about.

    After seeing Murphy play a few months, I started coming over to that view. I realize some people think he's a new man this year and that's fine. He probably is a little better. However, I would like some opinions on the following impact Murphy's absence and McRoberts' presence have to our .342 record. Why do you think this has happened? Why is McRoberts not getting more minutes with this record:

    McRoberts' .800 Record (10 minutes or more played)
    Dec 23 NJN L 107-108 25:05
    Dec 20 @ PHI W 95-94 28:23
    Dec 2 LAL W 118-117 10:38
    Nov 12 @NJN W 98-87 14:23
    Nov 10 OKC W 107-99 10:05

    Murphy's .666 Record (less than 25 minutes played)
    Jan 7 @PHO W 113-110 23:10
    Dec 23 NJN L 107-108 0
    Dec 20 @PHI W 95-94 0
    Dec 19 LAC L 109-117 0
    Dec 17 GSW W 127-120 0
    Dec 15 @WAS W 118-98 22:57
    Nov 14 PHI L 92-94 1 14:45
    Nov 12 @NJN W 98-87 0
    Nov 10 OKC W 107-99 13:24

  • #2
    Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Murphy's .666 Record (less than 25 minutes played)

    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

      For one, I do agree McRoberts should get more playing time. But, not because of these stats. Incredibly small sample size, correlation does not imply causation here. How much of a factor was Murphy and McRobert's in those games? They did not get enough playing time to make a very effective outcome on the game. If Manning plays 3 quarters, and Sorgi plays the 4th and the team wins. Was it because of Sorgi?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

        I agree about Troy Murphy filling the box score and that is it. He can score 20 points when his guy is scoring 25 or 43 like yesterday and then the pacers end losing the game by 3 or 5 points.(I would say the same for Rasho or foster), I was watching Troy last night and most of his rebounds are easy rebound with nobody around, Don't get me wrong I like him but for him to be an starter? him, rasho and dunleavy in the starting line up? who is going to play D? Danny? Jack? like I said before the pacers need to make a trade were they can get a guy that plays D regarding on how many points he get, the pacer already have Danny, Ford and Dun to score they need one or two more starter that can play D, unless they do this the pacers would never get better.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

          Explain how Murphy helps us lose games. I know he has deficiencies, but I think the coach could be creative enough to mask some of them to an extent through a more effective team defensive scheme. Troy isn't a great defender, but to call him the team's biggest problem (as one poster did in another thread) is a little harsh. Troy does his part to help us win. The offensive rebound stats for Troy will always be lower, because he spends so much time on the perimeter for a big man. Is he the best PF? No, but the guy isn't 4th in the league in rebounding just because those are the 11-12 rebounds the other team forgot to get.
          Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 01-13-2009, 08:07 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

            Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
            Explain how Murphy helps us lose games. I know he has deficiencies, but I think the coach could be creative enough to mask some of them to an extent through a more effective team defensive scheme. Troy isn't a great defender, but to call him the team's biggest problem (as one poster did in another thread) is a little harsh. Troy does his part to help us win. The offensive rebound stats for Troy will always be lower, because he spends so much time on the perimeter for a big man. Is he the best PF? No, but the guy isn't 4th in the league in rebounding just because those are the 11-12 rebounds the other team forgot to get.
            Those were not my words or the way I would put it. I would just say that the Pacers need a different type of player at the PF position.

            On defense, compared to other starting PF's, Murphy is slow, weak and cannot jump...relatively speaking. McRoberts is none of those for the most part. That's why I think McRoberts would really help our defense...which is the main reason we are losing. So that's my answer to your question of how Murphy helps the Pacers lose. But there is more.

            On offense, we have Dunleavy, Granger and Jack who like to launch threes. That's enough players with the finger on the trigger beyond the arc IMO. Last night I witnessed for the first time in my life, 5 players standing beyond the arc. Foster was standing at the top of the key and we had 4 gunslingers on the perimeter. Well, I think we have enough of those guys. Maybe we don't have the horses to play any other way, but I doubt it. We have a pretty good record without Murphy suited up...and I am ready to take that bet.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

              I'm really not a fan of Murphy's game, either. He's either on or off on offense, and almost always 'off' on defense. THAT SAID, the P's don't have a whole lot of bigs that deserve more PT than him right now. You could argue McRoberts, but it's not as if Foster or Rasho bring any more to the table than Murphy.

              Hibbert, of course, is another story entirely...sigh...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Those were not my words or the way I would put it. I would just say that the Pacers need a different type of player at the PF position.

                On defense, compared to other starting PF's, Murphy is slow, weak and cannot jump...relatively speaking. McRoberts is none of those for the most part. That's why I think McRoberts would really help our defense...which is the main reason we are losing. So that's my answer to your question of how Murphy helps the Pacers lose. But there is more.

                On offense, we have Dunleavy, Granger and Jack who like to launch threes. That's enough players with the finger on the trigger beyond the arc IMO. Last night I witnessed for the first time in my life, 5 players standing beyond the arc. Foster was standing at the top of the key and we had 4 gunslingers on the perimeter. Well, I think we have enough of those guys. Maybe we don't have the horses to play any other way, but I doubt it. We have a pretty good record without Murphy suited up...and I am ready to take that bet.
                Fair enough. The 5 players above the arc comment was chuckle-rrific. I agree that we need more of an interior defensive presence. As this team is currently constructed, I'm ok with Troy on the floor. I wouldn't mind seeing McRoberts in there to see how he does, though. It's not like he'll mess up our winning chemistry. Refresh my memory, wasn't McRoberts something of a shooter at Duke? What happened to his shooting ability in the pros?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  A few years ago when we acquired Troy Murphy, I recall reading a Golden State fan's description of him. Basically, the guy said he fills the box score but helps you lose games. I had not seen Troy play...so I pretty much ignored this poster. Well, I think either through logic or intuition this guy knew what he was talking about.
                  I didn't say he helps you lose games, I just said he isn't as good of a player as his numbers may indicate. But here's the post anyways.

                  http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...71&postcount=1

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                    Fair enough. The 5 players above the arc comment was chuckle-rrific. I agree that we need more of an interior defensive presence. As this team is currently constructed, I'm ok with Troy on the floor. I wouldn't mind seeing McRoberts in there to see how he does, though. It's not like he'll mess up our winning chemistry. Refresh my memory, wasn't McRoberts something of a shooter at Duke? What happened to his shooting ability in the pros?
                    If you didn't see it, the ball was passed around the perimeter too. Only one guy didn't touch it. It was quite special IMO.

                    Yes, this team is lacking the Antonio and Dale Davis presence needed to compete in the playoffs. We don't have the pieces to be good, but I think we can be better with a different mix. A relatively small adjustment could push this team above .400 IMO.

                    If we had a true C who had some athleticism, I would be fine with Murphy. For example, if we had Dwight Howard in the middle (I know I don't ask for much), Murphy would be a good match for him. He's just not a good match with our gazelle centers (i.e. Rasho and Roy). He also diminishes Foster's primary function (i.e. rebounding)...so he's not a great match for Foster either.

                    The bottom line is, we need Dale Davis back.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      I didn't say he helps you lose games, I just said he isn't as good of a player as his numbers may indicate. But here's the post anyways.

                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...71&postcount=1
                      I'm not sure if I was referring to this post...or even if the post was on this website, but will read or re-read it. I think Troy's strengths are obviously offense and rebounding...and those are prominent in the box...so yes, I have little doubt his value is overstated by stats. He does not do the little things needed to win...does not create...really is just a stat hog.

                      Edit: d_c: That was a work of art. You have him pegged.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-13-2009, 09:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I'm not sure if I was referring to this post...or even if the post was on this website, but will read or re-read it. I think Troy's strengths are obviously offense and rebounding...and those are prominent in the box...so yes, I have little doubt his value is overstated by stats. He does not do the little things needed to win...does not create...really is just a stat hog.

                        Edit: d_c: That was a work of art. You have him pegged.
                        I know I said this before, but this is one of the reasons why I like Kirilenko he is not an stat hog but he does the small things, block shots, assist and steals. Is there any other player that can do the small things like AK47 that the pacers can get?
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          A few years ago when we acquired Troy Murphy, I recall reading a Golden State fan's description of him. Basically, the guy said he fills the box score but helps you lose games. I had not seen Troy play...so I pretty much ignored this poster. Well, I think either through logic or intuition this guy knew what he was talking about.

                          After seeing Murphy play a few months, I started coming over to that view. I realize some people think he's a new man this year and that's fine. He probably is a little better. However, I would like some opinions on the following impact Murphy's absence and McRoberts' presence have to our .342 record. Why do you think this has happened? Why is McRoberts not getting more minutes with this record:

                          McRoberts' .800 Record (10 minutes or more played)
                          Dec 23 NJN L 107-108 25:05
                          Dec 20 @ PHI W 95-94 28:23
                          Dec 2 LAL W 118-117 10:38
                          Nov 12 @NJN W 98-87 14:23
                          Nov 10 OKC W 107-99 10:05

                          Murphy's .666 Record (less than 25 minutes played)
                          Jan 7 @PHO W 113-110 23:10
                          Dec 23 NJN L 107-108 0
                          Dec 20 @PHI W 95-94 0
                          Dec 19 LAC L 109-117 0
                          Dec 17 GSW W 127-120 0
                          Dec 15 @WAS W 118-98 22:57
                          Nov 14 PHI L 92-94 1 14:45
                          Nov 12 @NJN W 98-87 0
                          Nov 10 OKC W 107-99 13:24
                          McBob also played 16:42 in the 12/19 loss to the Clips, bringing the Pacers' record in McBob 10+ games to 4-2.

                          Of those six games, Murphy only played in one: the Lakers game. In that game, Murph played 37 minutes, had 16 points, 17 rebounds, and +/- of +12, and had the game winning tip. Since this is a discussion of how Murph helps us lose games, I'm assuming we can just remove this one from the analysis.

                          That leaves 5 games with extended minutes for McBob and no Murph, and a 3-2 record, still well above the combined .342 the team has posted.

                          The Strength of Schedule (based on today's records) of those teams is .365 (69-120), while the SoS for the remaining games is .571 (700-526). (The Pacers overall SoS is .543 (769-646).

                          I can recall McBob having good games in the OKC and Philly wins, and I can remember thinking he played well in the OT of the Clips loss. I can't remember him in either Nets game. In checking the box scores, he posted +7 and +9 vs. OKC & Philly, -16 vs. the Clips. In the two Nets games, he was -8 (in the win) and -5 (the loss). (Note, Devin Harris did not play in the game we won.)

                          Now, I realize that the Individual +/- is a flawed statistic. McBob helped us in two of the wins greatly, and didn't hurt us the way the -16 indicates in the Clips loss. However, his -8 in the NJ win is reasonably indicative that Devin Harris' absence coupled with the performance of other Pacers probably drove the victory more than any contribution from McBob.

                          In looking at the 9 games where Murph played fewer than 23 minutes, that resulted in six wins and three losses against a combined SoS of .372. (The remaining 29 games (and corresponding 7-22 record) were posted against a SoS of .597.

                          All in all, there were 10 games where either Murph played fewer than 23 minutes, McBob played more than 10, or both. One of those games is the Laker game, where Murph was clearly the factor, so that leaves the remaining 9 looked at in the last paragraph (as the 5 McBob games are a subset of that).

                          So, the Pacers in games where Murph played 23+, and McBob played fewer than 10 minutes, the Pacers are 7-22. It is against a tougher schedule, and is only a little worse than our 7-18 record against winning teams. It is clear that Murph's production does not translate into wins, but I am unsure how much of that to lay at Murphy's feet.

                          As to McBob having a positive impact on wins, the data wobbles between maybe and inconclusive. In six games, there were four wins. One where Murph was a major factor, two where McBob was a positive factor, and one where he was a non-factor. That's two in six (.333) where you could make an argument for McBob's presence actually being the difference maker, which is not really all that different from the overall .342.

                          There's no question that this team could use a more physical, defensive power forward, preferably one with a post game. However, it's not like those guys are standing around on street corners waiting to be picked up. While there are places where Murph would be a great fit (Orlando springs to mind), neither here nor Golden State strike me as being the best fit.

                          All in all, it's difficult to draw big conclusions from the splits you provided in your post because (a) the opponents in the split were considerably weaker than the average the Pacers have faced, (b) there are other outside factors, and (c) the sample for McBob extended minutes is too small and his actual impact is inconsistent.

                          EDIT: I've said in numerous other posts that I'd like to see McBob get more minutes. I don't mind a few coming from Murph, but I don't see that a replacement is appropriate.

                          Also, why is somebody trying to hang Okur's 43 on Murph? Memo was playing C, and I don't recall Murph guarding him a great deal. If someone could clarify that one way or the other.
                          Last edited by count55; 01-13-2009, 09:55 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            Also, why is somebody trying to hang Okur's 43 on Murph? Memo was playing C, and I don't recall Murph guarding him a great deal. If someone could clarify that one way or the other.

                            Foster was "guarding" Okur.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                              Excellent post Count55.

                              I do think that this correlation, if anything at all, should at least give some pause. That's really all.

                              Sometimes it's impossible to capture the truth with all the stats and calculus a PHd can bring to the table. How do you measure energy?...against different competition? There are simply too many factors. Sometimes you just have to try it.

                              I am convinced the Pacers should give 15mpg to McRoberts every game for 5 straight games as a test. There is very little to lose from a basketball standpoint...particularly this season. But more DNP's are on the way...

                              Edit: 1 caveat. This thread is titled McMurphy phenomena for a reason. It's not as narrow as just about Murphy losing us games....so I don't think McBob should be penalized just because Murphy was in that game. McBob's record is still 4-2 in games where he played 10 or more minutes...and that extra victory came against LA....not a bad team.
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-13-2009, 10:53 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X