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

Interesting Read: Hollinger Projects Pacers In Playoffs

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting Read: Hollinger Projects Pacers In Playoffs

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...PERDiem-101119
    Playoff Odds: Who's in, who's out?

    November 19, 2010
    ESPN INSIDER JOHN HOLLINGER
    If you could pick only one of them, which do you think is more likely to make the playoffs: Indiana or Oklahoma City?



    Seems obvious, doesn't it? The Pacers are a fairly uninteresting collection of B-list talent and haven't made the postseason since the last time Tony Parker was single, while the Thunder entered the season as the darlings of the league and boast two All-Star-caliber perimeter players in Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant. At 7-4 against the Pacers' 5-5, Oklahoma City also has a better record. The Thunder, it seems, are the obvious choice.



    Not so fast.



    Play out the season based on the results of games to date, adjust for the massive disparity in strength between the two conferences, and you reach a surprising conclusion: Indy's odds of qualifying for the playoffs appear to be significantly better than the Thunder's.




    That's the result of our simulation of the rest of the season using the Playoff Odds tool, which launches for 2010-11 today. The method, if you'll recall, is that we play out the rest of the season 5,000 times and tabulate the results, using the current Power Rankings as our base to set the odds of any individual game.



    We also allow for home-court advantage, and this early in the season we use a "regression to the mean" component; that way we tend to avoid overrating a team based on a particularly hot or cold start. (If we didn't do this, we'd find ourselves saying things like, "Based on its 10-0 start, Team X appears likely to win 75 games.")



    Of course, there will always be factors for which the computerized method can't compensate. Portland, for instance, projects to have a 70.5 percent chance of making the postseason, but that's based on a Power Ranking largely built with Brandon Roy in the lineup. If he can't participate in their final 69 games, one presumes the Blazers' odds diminish substantially.



    Here's another common occurrence that throws people when they look at the playoff odds: Often, a conference will have more than eight teams -- or fewer than eight teams -- with better than a 50 percent chance of making the playoffs. This is perfectly logical mathematically -- in fact, you could have all 15 teams in the conference with better than 50 percent odds, since if the games were completely random, each team's odds would be 53.3 percent. As long as the percentages add up to 800 in each conference and no single team has more than 100, any split of the odds among the 15 teams is kosher.



    Thus, the current situation we have in the East, where only seven teams project as likely to make the playoffs. This doesn't mean that the East will have only seven playoff teams (although I'd heartily support such a resolution), but rather that the probability of attaining the last spot is split nearly evenly among several fairly awful teams.



    As for the Pacers and Thunder? Here's how the Playoff Odds see it: Thanks to the Pacers' easier schedule in the Eastern Conference, the Pacers and Thunder project to finish the season with identical 41-41 records. And since the projected playoff cut-line is at 37 wins in the East but 44 wins in the West, that translates into much better postseason odds for the Pacers.


    Indy qualified for the postseason in 67.4 percent of our simulations, with the No. 7 seed its most likely landing spot. Oklahoma City? The Thunder made it only 43.2 percent of the time, with ninth place their most frequent endpoint. Even if a team projected to finish ahead of them (such as Portland) falls off the pace, the Thunder have to hold off three other challengers in Houston, Memphis and Golden State, all of whom project to win at least 38 games.



    In contrast, the three teams projected to share No. 9 in the East -- Toronto, Detroit and New York -- average only 34 wins in our simulations. So the Pacers have a great deal more wiggle room than the Thunder.



    We see this happen every season in the two conferences, when Western Conference teams enter the lottery and not the playoffs because they have the bad luck to play in the West instead of the East. This doesn't mean Indiana is a better team. Although the current Power Rankings would make Indiana a slight favorite on a neutral court, that's unlikely to hold up all season. But the Pacers don't need to be better; in fact, they can be substantially worse, because they're in a much easier neighborhood.


    So, as strange as it sounds, the Pacers are in a much better position to make the playoffs than the more celebrated Thunder squad, based on how they've played to date.

    A few more questions on the Playoff Odds:



    Why so conservative?



    You'll notice that no teams project to win 60 games and only five project to win more than 50. This results from two phenomena. First, the regression-to-the-mean component mentioned above is a factor. It will become less of one as the season goes on, but for now it retains a healthy skepticism that any team is as good (or bad) as we've seen so far.



    Second, however, is an important trend that I haven't seen folks account for: The bottom-feeders have become a lot better, and those wins have to come from somewhere. Last season New Jersey and Minnesota combined to win 27 games between them, and five other teams lost at least 55 games.



    This year? Only four teams project to lose more than 50, and none appear headed anywhere near the abysmal orbit the Nets and Wolves occupied a year ago. The worst projected records belong to Minnesota and Sacramento, both at 24-58; that's twice as many games as the Nets won in 2009-10.



    We're likely to see some movement toward the poles as the year goes on and the regression-to-the-mean component fades away, but it still stands to reason that the standings will be more compressed than those of other recent seasons. It's difficult to have a bunch of 60-win teams unless there are some equally awful teams to offset them at the bottom.



    How do the Heat project so well?



    Miami is "just" 7-4, but the Heat own the league's best Power Ranking thanks to what is far and away the NBA's best scoring margin. Additionally, based on Power Rankings, Miami has already played two of the three toughest games on its schedule (at Boston, at New Orleans).



    In their final 71 games, based on current Power Rankings, they have two toss-ups (at Boston, at Lakers) and will be favored in the other 69. That's how we arrive at Miami going 51-20 the rest of the way and landing a game ahead of Boston for the East's top seed.



    New Orleans ahead of the Lakers?



    The Hornets have placed extremely well in the early going, but naturally we should be skeptical about whether they can keep it up.



    While New Orleans projects to beat out the Lakers for the West's top seed by two games, in this case what the computer doesn't know may be of crucial importance: Namely, that L.A. has been playing without Andrew Bynum, and its defense has suffered as a result. I still expect the Lakers to be the West's No. 1 seed when all is said and done.



    Of more interest, perhaps, is the striation we're seeing in the West. Only New Orleans and San Antonio have established themselves as potential foils for L.A. After that is a morass of five teams projected to win 44-48 games, followed by early disappointments like Oklahoma City, Houston and (arguably) Memphis. The West remains the deeper, better conference, but at the top the East may be more powerful.



    Who are the mortal locks?



    You'll see some teams listed with odds at 100 percent, which obviously conveys a greater deal of certainty than you might think since we're still in the first month of the season.



    Two notes on those situations: First, a team can miss the playoffs in up to two of the 5,000 simulations and still show up as "100.0" because we round to the first decimal.



    Second, we run 5,000 simulations ... not a million. There are any number of ways a team like, say, Miami, could miss the playoffs, but most of them appear to be unlikely in the extreme. So we can't say, definitely, that the Heat are 100 percent certain to make the postseason until they've mathematically clinched. We can say, however, that they're within rounding-error distance.



    Thus far we have only three cases where a team's playoff odds are better than 99.5 percent: Boston, Miami and New Orleans are the lucky trio who can feel free to start printing playoff tickets. Boston can take comfort in a top-four seed, too, as the Celtics have a 99.6 percent shot to win the Atlantic Division (The Celtics project to win it by 23 games and be the division's only playoff team).



    On the other hand, three teams are basically out of it already. In the West, the Clippers, Kings and Timberwolves appear to have virtually no chance at the postseason, with a combined 0.6 percent probability that any of them make it.



    That may seem especially harsh with the Kings (3-7), given that a Houston team with a worse record still shows a 35.2 percent probability. But Sacramento has played the league's easiest schedule thus far -- their opponents have a .374 opponent winning percentage when not playing the Kings -- and played six of its 10 games at home. Houston, in contrast, has played one of the NBA's toughest slates.



    The Kings sit at 28th in the Power Rankings after a miserable home loss to Team Mozgov on Wednesday and would likely need to get well over .500 to make the postseason. Thus, the piddling 0.2 percent chance this morning's Playoff Odds give them seems entirely appropriate.

    PROJECTED ODDS EASTERN CONFERENCE
    1. Miami
    2. Boston
    3. Orlando
    4. Chicago
    5. Milwaukee
    6. Atlanta
    7. Indiana
    8. Charlotte


    PROJECTED ODDS WESTERN CONFERENCE
    1. New Orleans
    2. LA Lakers
    3. San Antonio
    4. Utah
    5. Dallas
    6. Portland
    7. Denver
    8. Phoenix
Working...
X