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

Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job??

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

  • Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job??

    I have been thinking that the Pacers are playing inconsistently due to wins against elite teams and losses to non-elite, but a recent article describes them as the most consistent team.



    http://basketballprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=576

    Quote:

    My next step, then, was to utilize the differential for each team as well as the location to create a projection of what the outcome would have been if a .500 team had played each game. For example, a completely average team going on the road (-3.5 points) to play the Cleveland Cavaliers (+9.6 points) would reasonably be expected to lose by 13.1 points. To determine how well the team actually played in this circumstance, we have to add 13.1 points to the actual outcome. So a nine-point loss at Quicken Loans Arena actually indicates a team has played better than average.
    Recalculating everything using adjusted differentials, here is the new list of most and least consistent teams.



    Inconsistent Dev Consistent Dev
    New Jersey 14.6 Indiana 8.8
    L.A. Clippers 14.2 Charlotte 10.0
    Denver 12.9 Cleveland 10.2
    Dallas 12.6 Philadelphia 10.3
    Sacramento 12.5 Houston 11.2


    In most cases, the changes are not dramatic. The Nets and the Pacers still show up at opposite extremes, and Indiana comes out as positively metronomic once the quality of opposition is taken into account, at least relatively speaking.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-08-2009, 11:29 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

    Well that's definitely a bump for the pro-JOB side of the debate. Not only do they rank as most consistent, even when adjusted for competition, but they are fairly well up the ladder too. They aren't just barely the top team, they are the only team into single digit deviation by either measure.

    Of course I'm not sure how proud we can be of consistency when it means maintaining a losing record. It's like the team is motivated and always brings it's game, but that game isn't a winning method...at least with this roster.

    Overall still a positive for JOB I think.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

      Hmmmm...

      Interesting...

      I guess the bottom line to the article is this: Despite their record, the Pacers are playing more to their style as coached and have the best chance of improving next year above other -.500 teams provided mgmt makes smart roster moves over the summer. It would certainly mean retaining JOB, but it also means retaining it's core players: Granger, Quis, Ford, Jack, Murphy, Foster, Hibbert and Dunleavy despite his injury situation.

      I'd include BRush as part of the core-mix except he lacked consistency in his overall performance even when given a full green light by his coach. He's starting to come around alittle, but I'm not ready to add him to that mix of players just yet. However, I do think that with a full summer of practising with the big boys he'll improve. Everyone else outside of the nine players mention I'd consider expendable.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

        One thing I know is the Pacers are in almost every game they play - much more so than a typical 35 win team. In fact I would compare that aspect favorably with a 48 win team. And that is one huge reason why I think JOB is doing a very good job with this team.

        I see teams like the Hawks, Nets get blown out quite often. Even really good teams like the mavs, Jazz, Rockets (teams much better than the Pacers) get blown out more than the Pacers and for that I give a lot of credit to O'Brien,
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-07-2009, 08:49 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

          They play hard most every night and even when they lose, they're typically have a chance late in the game.

          Have to admire a team that believes in hard work.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

            yeah, blowouts occur due to lack of effort.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

              Considering the number of terrible bowouts I've witnessed first hand at the staples center, my superstitious side wishes that this talk had waited until after tonight's game.
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job

                I added something to the thread title

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  Considering the number of terrible bowouts I've witnessed first hand at the staples center, my superstitious side wishes that this talk had waited until after tonight's game.
                  Ha-Ha! Take that!

                  LA 1
                  Superstition 0

                  Looks like you had the last laugh...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job

                    At least you left it with room for questioning by ending the title with two question marks.

                    A statement such as "The Pacers are playing teams close on a much more consistent basis this season, due in part to the coaching of Jim O'Brien." would not get much argument from anyone here.

                    At times, his strategy is quite valid, especially against the elite teams that are highly trained and used to facing traditional strategies against them. Their effectiveness against us is reduced due to the pace we play and the fact that the faster that play gets, the more both teams are likely to break down defensively, leading to mutually high scoring results.

                    It is against weaker teams that his strategy is very questionable. We nearly all believe that we are overall more talented this year. With a more structured, disciplined approach to games against weaker opponents, I feel we would benefit more by playing less small ball and an overall slower tempo to keep the opposing teams from getting into an offensive rhythm and increasing our ability to defend due to the slower pace of the game allowing us to get back more effectively on defense.

                    That said, as I have stated elsewhere, ultimately the bottom line is "Just win, baby" and we have magically done so more lately despite our two best players being out and more play for Rush, especially, which has helped our defense more than it has hurt our offense. Hibbert is growing, as well, and hopefully his personal loss of his grandfather won't totally crush his spirit during the entire remainder of the season.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job??

                      I've said it before and I'll say it again: I can't imagine a much better coach for what we currently need than Jim O'Brien. He's a great leader and I think the guys genuinely like playing for him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        One thing I know is the Pacers are in almost every game they play - much more so than a typical 35 win team. In fact I would compare that aspect favorably with a 48 win team. And that is one huge reason why I think JOB is doing a very good job with this team.

                        I see teams like the Hawks, Nets get blown out quite often. Even really good teams like the mavs, Jazz, Rockets (teams much better than the Pacers) get blown out more than the Pacers and for that I give a lot of credit to O'Brien,
                        So are they a good 35 win team or a terrible 48 win team?

                        The reason I made the Isiah drop in another thread, and let me add Bob Hill too since it was the same thing, is because both coaches had teams that did enough to keep you hopeful and to give you a sense that it was just a matter of time only to find out you were being strung along.


                        I don't hate him Buck, but you've got to understand my point a little too. The guy has just had 2 clearly losing seasons. Not 40-42, but seasons where they definitely were under .500 most or all of the way. To counter it we get "quality losses", but that's so dangerous because that's how you get strung along.

                        I think they made a massive mistake to give up on Rick so quickly, and I would apply that attitude toward JOB too. Things have been rough and it's not so easy to blame the coach. But at the same time you fired a guy and hired a new one for a reason - and the only good reason is because the team would play better.

                        At some point you can't keep measuring better in non-tangible terms and have to see it associated with W-L.

                        I'll agree (as I did in my first post) that consistency is a tangible measure that does suggest a positive situation. But then let me counter that with this - TIM FLOYD WAS A VERY CONSISTENT COACH. His teams always lost a ton, no surprises there. The point is that you must question how good it is to consistently be on the short end of the stick, doesn't that say something about the coaching too?



                        Sorry, I'm just worried that we might be on a ride to nowhere. If we have a 3rd 35 win season, but with yet another consistent effort all season, do you still keep him as coach? And add to the mix some of the limited youth development to boot and it makes it tough to see exactly where this is all heading beyond where it is right now.

                        It's very hard for me to see how this team becomes a 42-45 win team next year.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team?

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          So are they a good 35 win team or a terrible 48 win team?

                          The reason I made the Isiah drop in another thread, and let me add Bob Hill too since it was the same thing, is because both coaches had teams that did enough to keep you hopeful and to give you a sense that it was just a matter of time only to find out you were being strung along.


                          I don't hate him Buck, but you've got to understand my point a little too. The guy has just had 2 clearly losing seasons. Not 40-42, but seasons where they definitely were under .500 most or all of the way. To counter it we get "quality losses", but that's so dangerous because that's how you get strung along.

                          I think they made a massive mistake to give up on Rick so quickly, and I would apply that attitude toward JOB too. Things have been rough and it's not so easy to blame the coach. But at the same time you fired a guy and hired a new one for a reason - and the only good reason is because the team would play better.

                          At some point you can't keep measuring better in non-tangible terms and have to see it associated with W-L.

                          I'll agree (as I did in my first post) that consistency is a tangible measure that does suggest a positive situation. But then let me counter that with this - TIM FLOYD WAS A VERY CONSISTENT COACH. His teams always lost a ton, no surprises there. The point is that you must question how good it is to consistently be on the short end of the stick, doesn't that say something about the coaching too?



                          Sorry, I'm just worried that we might be on a ride to nowhere. If we have a 3rd 35 win season, but with yet another consistent effort all season, do you still keep him as coach? And add to the mix some of the limited youth development to boot and it makes it tough to see exactly where this is all heading beyond where it is right now.

                          It's very hard for me to see how this team becomes a 42-45 win team next year.
                          What?! It's very easy to blame the coach! Everyone does it! It's not so easy not to blame the coach. I don't get your argument, however. What do you think Rick or any non-Obie coach could get out of this team that Obie isn't getting?

                          To me, Rick is like a very, very harsh horse jockey. He whips his horses really hard and gets great performance out of them. However, I think it's the type of coaching that you only want to give to veteran horses and for a limited time period - neither of which we have now. I like Rick as a coach but I think Obie is great as well, particularly for our situation

                          Roy is starting, Brandon is playing significant minutes, often late. Neither have hit their walls and they've clearly improved over the season. And the same goes for Jack and Murphy, for that matter. Also, Obie hates losing. And I think it's important to have a coach that can get that mentality into his players like Obie does without being overbearing and harsh like Bob Knight. Frankly, I think he's rubbed off on Granger a bit as well.

                          Again, criticize his defense or his offense but the fact of the matter is this: the team has made huge strides in both areas, they play hard and they're fun to watch (most times).

                          To answer your initial question, there is no such thing as a "good 35 win" or a "terrible 48 win team." This is a 35-38 win team. They probably overachieved to get there but that's besides the point. This is where they deserved to go, based on their effort, which has been consistently high (as opposed to Tim Floyd NBA teams), and we can thank Obie for that, I think. This is a good type of consistency - don't compare it Tim Floyd because that's fallacious in more than one way.

                          I must betray my age and ignorance by claiming that I don't recall the Bob Hill era. However, as an eye-witness for the Isiah age, how can you even draw any kind of comparison? The same Isiah who had one of the most talented Pacer teams of all time completely fall of the map in 2003 after a strong start pre-all-star game? Isiah was anything but consistent. Jesus.

                          I don't think Phil Jackson could have gotten 40 wins these past two years. Kudos to Obie for doing a great job with the guys. Yeah, we'll stop measuring things in intangibles after the rebuilding stops. Until then, we're gonna be happy as long as Obie turns out a consistent effort from his team.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job??

                            For those that like to point at O'Brien as the reason for the Pacers record the past 2 seasons... How much do injuries factor into the performance and record of the team?

                            Honestly, each season they entered training camp with a certain expectation of who the personnel would be. Obie builds his team's schemes based on these players giving them major roles.

                            Season 1 two of his top players go down with injuries - his leading scorer/defender and assist man. Prior to the injuries the Pacers are 3 games over .500. The team has to make adjustments the entire second half of the season with young players and castoffs taking the lead. They play hard down the stretch and miss the playoffs by one game.

                            Season 2 is more of the same but add in the fact that the team's best defender was traded in the offseason and there are 7 new players added to the mix. Still they start of the season well, even without a key player (Dunleavy), and have a 5-5 record through the first 10 games. Yet again, the young guys step up their game, several players have career best year, and the team is right in the playoff hunt again.

                            Teams that lose their best players to injury for more than 40 games are supposed to suck. This team continues to compete and pull out tough wins. Even when they lose they play to the horn and give themselves a chance to win.

                            Obie has definitely earned at least one more year as coach.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers are Most Consistent Team? Some proof JOB is doing a good job??

                              Injuries and roster turnover are always part of the job. It's up to the coach to deal with it.

                              Isiah, Rick and JOB have all been in the same boat. Zeke and Rick dealt with massive mid-season trades, youth, crazy off seasons, non-basketball related upheavals & certainly missed games to projected starters etc...O'Brien has been the least effective in the W/L column.
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X