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

Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

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

  • Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

    In the last couple of years, I've posted some of the Pacers player ratings as determined by the Utah Index, a simple player rating system used by the late Larry Miller, of the Utah Jazz.

    This is a comparison of our players' individual performance, and the Pacers' performance this year vs last, and vs the rest of the league, and our opponents.....kind of a performance / stats overview for the non-statistically inclined.

    The Utah Index adds points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks; subtracts FGAs, TOs and PFs; then divides the whole mess by minutes played. So: (Points+As+Rbs+Stls+Blks) - (FGAs+TOs+PFs)
    ......................Minutes Played.............................


    example -- Granger thru first 30 games this year:

    (24.4pts + 6.1 Rbs +2.6 ast + 1.6 stls + 1.0 blks) = 35.7
    minus (18.6 FGAs + 2.9 TOs + 3.3 PFs)................= 24.8
    .................................................. .......................10.9,
    ............................... divided by 36.6 mins/gm= .298 rating

    Player.........09/10 .....08/09 season
    Granger...........298........312
    Murphy............411........429
    Ford................216........262
    Dunleavy.........155........200
    Foster.............207.........287
    Hibbert............220........194
    Rush...............124........112
    McRoberts.......148.........212
    D. Jones..........098
    S. Jones..........145
    Head..............128
    Watson...........240
    Hansbrough.....247
    Price...............219
    Diener...........................274

    Pacers...........204.........243
    Opponents.....261.........273
    NBA..............235 .........241

    So what do we see? We are, as a team, below the index average, although we were just above the average last year.

    Our opponents are significantly above the average each year, although not as much this year vs 08-09.

    Using the .235 NBA avg this year, we have four above average players.

    Almost all the returning players indexes are down...Roy and Rush being the exceptions.

    ---------------------------------------------
    Interesting to see the relative numbers. Obviously, a purely defensive specialist could get short-changed by this index, if his defensive efforts don't result in steals or blocks. Conversely, (I'll say it before someone else does, even if I don't buy the spin personally) a stats-hungry fantasy stud that doesn't play serious defense could come off very well.

    It should be noted also, this index looks at performance vs floor minutes, so someone that played two minutes really well would have a better number that an average 30-minute player.
    Last edited by kester99; 12-31-2009, 11:23 PM.


    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  • #2
    Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

    And if I don't meet you no more in this world
    Then ill, I'll meet you in the next one and don't be late, don't be late.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

      Originally posted by Kester
      We have four above average players
      (all of whom are rated worse than last year)



      No sun coming through my windows,
      feel like I'm sitting at the bottom of a grave.
      No sun coming through my windows,
      feel like I'm sitting at the bottom of a grave.

      I wish you'd hurry up 'n' rescue me
      so I can be on my mis'rable way
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

        Man, we need to trade Murph to Utah. They'd love him there.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Man, we need to trade Murph to Utah. They'd love him there.
          No doubt. We need to print this stat out and show how much better Murphy is than Granger. No question about it...they'd give us Deron for Troy.

          Better yet, I calculated Kobe's Utah Index for this year. It's only .362. Why Larry is not on the phone right now with the Lakers...I just don't understand.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

            Here the players' Utah Index during the . . . let's just say during a period of a couple of weeks during early to mid November:


            Hibbert.....451
            Granger....399
            Ford.........350
            Watson.....303
            DJones.....266
            Rush........213
            Price........211
            SJones.....155
            Head........119



            EDIT: Where's McKeyFan? This post has been here nearly five hours and he hasn't yet jumped on it.

            .
            Last edited by Putnam; 01-01-2010, 04:33 PM.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Here the players' Utah Index during the . . . let's just say during a period of a couple of weeks during early to mid November:


              Hibbert.....451
              Granger....399
              Ford.........350
              Watson.....303
              DJones.....266
              Rush........213
              Price........211
              SJones.....155
              Head........119



              .
              So, is it safe to assume that Jim O'Brien is not from Utah?

              At least it is as valid as +/- as a tool, isn't it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                So, is it safe to assume that Jim O'Brien is not from Utah?
                He might be. It would explain why he thinks Troy is our best player.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  He might be. It would explain why he thinks Troy is our best player.
                  Great catch...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                    So, is it safe to assume that Jim O'Brien is not from Utah?

                    At least it is as valid as +/- as a tool, isn't it?

                    Not even remotely close to being as valid.

                    1) Watch games
                    2) Ford and Troy at the bottom of the +/- list, and that's per minute not just total
                    3) Troy best player on team by Utah, Ford better than Head and Rush and not that far off of Watson even, DJones as an epically terrible player
                    3b) See things like Kobe's Utah index, now look at Kobe's +/- for the Lakers

                    Not only that, but 82games.com has the ON-OFF court +/- which is even better, and Troy and Ford are the ONLY Pacers who have a POSITIVE off court number to go with their large on court negative number. The only guys who the numbers say the team actually wins when they don't play.



                    Here's why the Utah index is terrible, the stats aren't normalized.

                    If you are a great defender and the only way we measure that is by blocks and steals here, then what does a GREAT, MEGA STAR defender put up for those stats? Lets say 3 blocks and 2.5 steals per game. This is a guy crushing FG% and chasing people away from the rim constantly, tipping passes and picking pockets. It's 50% of the game and he's a hero on that end, a combo of Dwight Howard (leading with 2.5) and Rondo (leading with 2.5).

                    Your total "score" for the defensive end play is 5.

                    Now look at any run of the mill PG, a guy the team could or could not live without. He drops 4-5 assists per game, okay but not great. He doesn't score ANY points or make any defensive plays at all. None.

                    This system says he's just as good as the superstar defender.

                    In +/- the 4.5 assist player could go -10 while letting his man waltz to the rim and killing the shot clock at the other end before a bail out pass to a teammate results in a missed FG. The Defensive ace doesn't do anything on offense, just stands to the side while his team eek out 6-7 points, but at the other end he literally doesn't allow the other team a single point. He's +7.

                    So the +/- shows this, the Utah index says these guys are identical.



                    ALL FORMULAS have these issues, they are based on already questionable meaning stats like rebounds (they aren't all the same) and assists (it's a subjective stat where an individual decides when to give it, and even then they aren't all of the same quality). Then they typically make little to no effort to normalize what is considered "good". Is 2 blocks really the same as 2 uncontested rebounds? Or even 2 assists? 2 blocks on the first 5 trips and the other team might not even bother coming at you after that, not to mention the changed shots to avoid the block.

                    The fouls and TOs are meant to counter the defensive play and assists, but that great defender I mentioned could easily have 2-3 fouls in a game. So his Utah score isn't even 5.5 probably, it's more like 2.

                    The shooting stat is really just the Points Per Shot, except instead of division it's done as a total, so the more you shoot the better your score (if you have a positive PPS, which any marginally good player does).

                    Yet if you don't make 3s or draw FTAs, but do shoot well, ie 50% from the floor, you suck by the Utah index. 13-26 for 26 points is worthless. It's a non-contribution.

                    To keep up with a marginal rebounder of say 7 rebounds per game, that 13-26 shooter would need to go 4-5 from the FT line AND 3 of 7 from deep for a 33 point night.

                    33 point night on 50% from the field and you are IDENTICAL to the 7 rebound guy who literally did nothing else.

                    Then to make it worse you get 2 steals, a block and 3 assists, but turn it over 3 times and have 3 fouls, and you are STILL identical to the guy that stands on the sideline on defensive possessions.



                    The Utah system is notorious for overemphasizing rebounds and under-appreciating defensive play.

                    Oh, and like the +/- it's based 100% on WHO YOU PLAY WITH AND AGAINST, just like every single stat kept.



                    *I'm not trying to be a huge +/- fan, but it's clearly being dismissed as a stat by fans who have never taken the time to really analyze the already used and massively flawed "traditional" stats.
                    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-01-2010, 12:56 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      *I'm not trying to be a huge +/- fan, but it's clearly being dismissed as a stat by fans who have never taken the time to really analyze the already used and massively flawed "traditional" stats.
                      I think if you take out fans and insert O'Brien you would have it right. Ford and Murphys plus/minus is tell all IMO. We are better without them. I hear him talk about the plus/minus all the time but obviously he isn't living by it, or by whats clearly visible on the court. The season is lost. Bench the vets and play the young guys now. We just might be better in the future for it. Instead of being a mediocore to bad team.

                      And I agree that the Utah Index is flawed for player to player comparisons. Obviously Murphy isn't better than Granger or Kobe. But what you have to look at here is the trends from year to year and compare them.

                      I agree with the Index that Murphy, Ford, Granger, and Dunleavy have all regressed this year. I also agree Rush and Hibbert have progressed. It is spot on. I think the Utah Index is 100 percent right in this aspect.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                        Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                        I also agree Rush and Hibbert have progressed.
                        Rush has progressed? What am I missing? Because he has been so inconsistent on offense all of a sudden people are talking about his brilliant defense. I am not convinced even that is in the very good category since I haven't seen numbers comparing how he defends said player vs. how others defend the same player.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          Rush has progressed? What am I missing?
                          I think we're looking at maybe three distinct periods so far with him. One was early last year (most of the year); two was when he came out of his shell the last few games last year (which everybody remembers, but it was really a short period); and three is this year.

                          To me, he's better so far this year than the majority of last year...still the learning curve seems to be long. His flashes of effectiveness don't seem quite so far apart, though.


                          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                            Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                            I think we're looking at maybe three distinct periods so far with him. One was early last year (most of the year); two was when he came out of his shell the last few games last year (which everybody remembers, but it was really a short period); and three is this year.


                            Four distinct periods. Four!






                            .
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Team and Players rated -- the Utah Index (a slight return)

                              I said 'maybe' three. That's the same as four.


                              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X