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

Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

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

  • #46
    Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

    Yesh ChicagoJ we have discussed Shaq's defense. First with him you have to decided if you are going to judge him based upon the way he typically played defense - at about 60% or if you are going to judge him by the way he only on rare occasions played defense when he went at 80-85%. Me, I think Hakeem, Zo, KG are the best interior defenders I have ever seen. Shaq wouldn't be anywhere on my list. Ask his former coaches if they would get frustrated at the way Shaq typically played defense - lackluster

    Isn't the first prerequisite of being a dominant defender - hard play at all times. Shaq never approached doing that

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

      My butt. The man worked his tail off to establish inside position. You're equating "playing hard" with motion. It was his stability that made him great.

      You "stand still" and keep a player both strong and quick like Patrick or Hakeem from getting deeper position. Matter of fact, you don't have to stand still. You can do everything you want to keep them out of the paint. Shaq didn't just keep them out of the paint, he kept them so far out they would lose usefulness.

      When Rik bulked up, he was even pretty good at post defense. But he had knee and foot problems so he slimmed back down. I wish I had video of game I drove down from Taylor to watch in about 1990 when Patrick could not get good position on a young Smits but scored at will against Dreiling.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Gotcha!!!!!!!

        You just put Dale in Shaq's, Hakeem & Zo's teritory. So therefor by stating this you are now admitting that Dale was an elite post defender thus making your Tony is as good as Dale remarks null and void.
        I don't think I said Tony was as good as Dale.

        Dale's "strengths" were not the issue. Dale's weaknesses were. I appreciate Dale's defense and acknowledge that he was the team's post presence, defensively.

        Tony was a better rounded player but did not excel at any one part of the game. Dale's defense was excellent. I've never disputed that. I was just terrified when he would get a rebound because he'd probably get fouled before he could pass the ball away.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          I'll never forget him hipchecking Reggie out of bounds or taking an extremely hard foul after the whistle would blow.
          (a) February of 1993. When the rivalry actually began. Oak was not even called for a foul on the play but was fined $10k (the largest fine at that time) and may have even been suspended a game.

          (b) THAT's the difference between Oak and Dale. Oak was dirty after the play was over. Both were excellent warriors between the whistles, especially on the defensive side of the ball. Oak also had a better midrange jumper.

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          Really???

          In what way? This has me perplexed.
          I think they're both (Dale and Oak) physical.

          When I think of fast, lean, athletic, I don't think of either of them. That's Garnett, and what JO probably should have remained in retrospect. Oak and Dale used physical strength - an important form of athleticism - to be sturdy and stable, not jump like grasshoppers and run like jackrabbits.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

            Don't forget that Oak was several years older than Dale, so the head-to-head matchups in the mid-90s were not when Oak was at his prime. He was starting to show his age but I don't think that Dale at his prime was significantly more agile than Oak at his prime.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

              See I disagree with some of this. Dale was as strong as an ox but I think the thing that set Dale apart from other muscle player (Kevin Willis come to mind) was the fact that for a big man he was cat like quick when he was younger.

              In fact I think in terms of lateral movement he may have been as fast as any big man that I have ever seen, including Garnett.

              You may be remembering Dale in the 04 season when he was in his mid 30's and much slower.

              When you watch Winning time next weekend, pay attention to the one shot that they say put an end to Ewings career as an elite player. They talk about Pat getting confused and thinking that he was going to draw contact from the defender and get fouled. He didn't, he missed the shot due to the shot being contested enough and he didn't get the rebound because the defender not only sidetepped him for the layup but was fast enough to beat everyone else to the ball to secure the rebound and thus the game.

              That defender was Dale btw. That playe was a combination of skill (not fouling) and speed (getting from one spot to another before anyone else could).


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                I'll grant you that Dale had speed, but not KG/ pre-2002 JO or Jeff Foster-like speed. I mean, he occasionally used his speed so that he had some variety to his game. Just like, on occasions, KG, JO (pre 2002) and Foster sometimes played strong.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                  There's a lot of good discussion here, including an encyclopedic answer from Brad.


                  Much of the discussion explains why the Pacers foul a lot, but that wasn't my question. I was asking why the ratio of Opponents' FTA per Pacers' PF was higher than for other teams. (I only included Eastern Conference teams in the chart.)

                  The Pacers don't just foul -- they give more shooting fouls at a progressive rate. That is what I wanted an explanation of.

                  As I was driving around this afternoon, it occurred to me, just as I was turning left and "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" by The Georgia Satellites came on the cd player, that the answer to my question is probably just a function of fouling more than 5 times each quarter.

                  You can foul up to 4 times a quarter without giving up any free throws, but beyond that every foul is a shooting foul. So fouling at a rate of 23 PF per game means giving up more shots on the 16th and subsequent fouls.

                  Pretty obvious, I guess. But I try never to trust the obvious answer.



                  Coupla notes.

                  The best no-fouls performance this season so far came in the Cavaliers' 21pt victory over your Indiana Pacers on Jan 19th, when they committed only 12 total fouls and gave the Pacers a mere five FTA, which, to their credit they sank all five of!

                  According to Basketball Reference, there hasn't been a single instance since 1990 of a team getting zero FTA in a game. Twice a team got only 2 FTA

                  http://www.basketball-reference.com/...=&order_by=pts

                  There've been 33 game when a team committed fewer than 10 total fouls in a game. That team won only 18 games -- barely over .500. so not fouling doesn't confer or signify any advantage.

                  http://www.basketball-reference.com/...=&order_by=pts





                  .
                  Last edited by Putnam; 03-04-2010, 04:02 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


                  • #54
                    Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    There's a lot of good discussion here, including an encyclopedic answer from Brad.


                    Much of the discussion explains why the Pacers foul a lot, but that wasn't my question. I was asking why the ratio of Opponents' FTA per Pacers' PF was higher than for other teams. (I only included Eastern Conference teams in the chart.)

                    The Pacers don't just foul -- they give more shooting fouls at a progressive rate. That is what I wanted an explanation of.

                    As I was driving around this afternoon, it occurred to me, just as I was turning left and "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" by The Georgia Satellites came on the cd player, that the answer to my question is probably just a function of fouling more than 5 times each quarter.

                    You can foul up to 4 times a quarter without giving up any free throws, but beyond that every foul is a shooting foul. So fouling at a rate of 23 PF per game means giving up more shots on the 16th and subsequent fouls.

                    Pretty obvious, I guess. But I try never to trust the obvious answer.

                    .
                    A few things based on rough numbers (All from play-by-plays, excluding the Portland Game).

                    1. Of the 1,402 fouls the Pacers had committed through the Lakers game, 754 had been Shooting fouls. That's the highest number of fouls and the highest number of shooting fouls in the league. As a percent of total fouls, this 53.8% is 6th highest in the league, behind the Jazz, Nets, Clippers, Bucks, and Heat. The league average is about 50.4%, so that's roughly an extra 84-ish FTA's (with a slight adjustment for and-ones) compared to the league norm. (The 53.8% is slightly more than one std dev above the mean.)

                    2. In the NBA, you put the other team in the bonus in one of two ways: (1) commit 5 team fouls (excluding Offensive Fouls) in a quarter or (2) commit two fouls in the final two minutes of the quarter. I'd have to do more charting to get the data on the second way, but we can use quarters where the committed more than 5 fouls as a directional amount.

                    Leaguewide, teams commit 5 or more fouls in a quarter about 52% of the time. The Pacers, however, are dead last in this category, committing 5 or more fouls in fully two-thirds of their quarters or roughly 67%. Only two other teams (SAC -62% & GSW-65%) have cleared 60%. The Pacers well over two std devs from the mean.

                    If we were to pretend for a minute that all of the fouls after the fourth result in 2 FTA's (not perfect, but reasonable), then use the Pacers' actual foul count by quarter, their "bonus" fouls would have resulted in 460 Opponent FT's. The league average for a team is only 321.

                    Basically, they're among the league leaders in shooting fouls, and they put the opponent in the bonus way more often than the norm.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                      ^^^^ Thank you. Great explanation.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        ^^^^ Thank you. Great explanation.
                        FT's have an interesting impact on offensive or defensive performance, if you use Offensive Rating or Defensive Rating as a measuring stick (points scored/allowed per 100 possessions).

                        The Four Factors of Winning are really pretty cool. They are eFG%, TOV%, Reb% (Off for Offense, Def for Defense) and FT/FGA's.

                        If you look at these in aggregate, by using an accumulated rank, you see they really correlate well to winning percentage. (It's not a perfect predictor, but a good indicator.)




                        In any case, the eFG%'s are far and away the most important. Looking at all the teams since 1980, a team's rank in eFG% has a correlation of over 0.85 to the team's rank in either Offensive or Defensive Ratings.

                        FT's are the second most important on the Offensive side, with a 0.60 correlation in rankings. However, it is the least important on the defensive side, showing only a 0.21 correlation to DefRtg ranks.

                        However, I consider them extremely important in the case of this year's Pacers. Their totals are so out of whack with the norm, that they explain why the Pacers have had a top 10 eFG% for the majority of the year, yet have consistently hovered around average in DefRtg, and, consequently, in the middle of the pack. (EDIT: This paragraph is probably, strictly speaking, the wrong way to say it. The correlation is still poor: 30th in FT/FGA vs. 14th in DefRtg. However, it is still the boat anchor on the defense. It drags it down.)

                        Additionally, the Top 10 eFG% is a little bit of a mislead. It's probably aided by the fact that they're taking so many shooting fouls. You've used Hoopdata before, so you'll recognize this, but I think the Pacers Opp XeFG% is lower because they're fouling other teams at the rim.
                        Last edited by count55; 03-04-2010, 07:38 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          There's a lot of good discussion here, including an encyclopedic answer from Brad.
                          .
                          OK, the Cliffs notes say

                          1. Pacers commit too many fouls due to various defensive deficiencies.

                          2. More fouls inevitably mean more free throws than the opponents due to getting into the bonus more quickly then they do on a regular basis.

                          3. A combination of poor perimeter defense due to players being injured, played out of their natural positions, and overall poor defensive strategy given the available assets leaves us vulnerable to dribble penetration at a higher rate than other teams.

                          4. More likelihood of being attacked on the interior leads to more potential contact with our weak interior defense that is caused by a variety of factors, some of which are not related to the quality of the players we have on the actual interior, but rather requires those players to do more than their experience level and athleticism permits them to do on a nightly basis.

                          5. More contact with our defenders leads to a higher percentage of FTA's per FGA.

                          6. These things coupled with our blatant tendency not to drive with the intent to score ourselves likely leads to a strategy shift on the part of opposing coaches who decide to exploit this and beat us at the line by driving with intent to score which don't do as frequently as we should, which accelerates the above even moreso than would be expected ordinarily.

                          7. In a more succinct fashion this time, I basically said that I would take what O'Brien does both offensively and defensively and basically do the opposite, within reason, and that this, too, is his fault.

                          Better?

                          I could probably truncate it further by going into the abbreviations used for texting, but hopefully that won't be necessary .

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                            Originally posted by Brad8888
                            Better?

                            I could probably truncate it further by going into the abbreviations used for texting, but hopefully that won't be necessary .
                            Oh, it was fine the first time. "Encyclopedic" is a good thing!
                            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


                            • #59
                              Re: Why do the Pacers give up so many FTAs?

                              Originally posted by Count55
                              Looking at all the teams since 1980, a team's rank in eFG% has a correlation of over 0.85 to the team's rank in either Offensive or Defensive Ratings.
                              Wow. It does my heart good to see such a strong correlation. Sometimes causality exists!

                              Thanks again for the additional detailed commentary.


                              .
                              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

                              Working...
                              X