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

3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

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

  • 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

    WITNESS THIS!



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 6:00 PM ET
    Where: AmericanAirlines Arena, Miami, FL
    Officials: D. Crawford, M. Boland, D. Collins

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Miami Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / Sun Sports / NBA TV
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WAXY 790 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    39-23
    Away: 14-16
    East: 26-13
    46-14
    Home: 23-7
    East: 22-9
    Mar 13
    Mar 15
    Mar 16
    Mar 18
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:30pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    BOSH
    DJANGO
    JAMES
    WADE
    CHALMERS


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - sore knee (out)



    HEAT
    None




    3-on-3 Preview: Pacers at Heat

    In another installment of the Heat Index's 3-on-3 series, our writers give their takes
    on the storylines before the Heat face the Pacers on Sunday (6 p.m. ET).


    1. Fact or Fiction: The Pacers are the biggest threat to the Heat’s repeat bid.

    Tom Haberstroh: Fiction. In the East? Probably. But the Thunder, the Grizzlies, the
    Clippers and the Spurs would probably give the Heat more trouble than the Pacers.
    The Pacers defense might be the stingiest of the group, but I'm skeptical of the
    offensive firepower.

    Michael Wallace: Fiction. The Pacers are the second-biggest threat -- and only if they
    get reliable perimeter shooting. I believe a healthy Spurs team is the Heat's biggest
    potential threat. They have an efficient, attacking point guard, a big man who's
    effective on both ends and floor spacers who knock down threes. And I didn't even
    mention Gregg Popovich.

    Brian Windhorst: Fiction. I think the Pacers play the Heat with more edge than any
    other team in the East. Yes, even more than the Celtics. There's genuine animosity
    there and it manifests itself in the games. That said, I just don't believe the Pacers
    are a bigger threat than the Spurs, Thunder or perhaps even the Clippers.


    3. Fact or Fiction: The Heat’s streak will still be intact after Sunday.

    Haberstroh: Fact. This is the last obstacle that LeBron James has to conquer this
    regular season, and I'm learning not to doubt him at this point. He's shooting over
    60 percent on this 17-gamer, which is outright baffling for a perimeter player.

    Wallace: Fact. The regular-season series will end with the Pacers holding a 2-1
    edge and both teams having held serve at home. What does that mean in the
    bigger picture going into the playoffs? Absolutely nothing. Regardless of Sunday's
    outcome, Indiana is confident it can beat the Heat. Miami is confident the Pacers
    haven't quite...CONTINUE READING AT HEAT INDEX

    Ian Levy: Team Defense - Product and Process

    On his college basketball blog, Ken Pomeroy has been arguing, for quite some time, that
    a more descriptive measure of a team’s three-point defense is opponent attempts as
    opposed to opponent 3PT%
    . While his commentary has focused on three-point shooting
    the same point holds true, to a certain degree, with shots inside the arc. As first it may
    seem counter-intuitive for the most accurate description of how well a team defends
    certain areas of the the floor not to be field goal percentage. But if we talk the idea
    through it quickly seems less radical.

    Although it may not feel like it at times, NBA players take good shots. In the vast majority
    of cases, if a shot has little or no chance to go in, an NBA player won’t take it unless the
    game situation somehow dictates that this is the best option. There are of course,
    stunningly obvious counter-examples – see Smith, J.R. – but when we applaud teams that
    take good shots, or chastise a player for poor ones, we are splitting hairs and ignoring the
    countless impossible and improbable shots that they passed up. In that context we can
    comfortably say that often, the best defended shots are the ones where the defense
    allowed such low-percentage openings that the offense recognized it wasn’t in their best
    interest to take them.

    This idea represents a big and often overlooked measure of quality defense. We look at
    shooting percentages to evaluate defense, but that often offers precious little distinction.
    Looking at 386 team seasons, going back to 2000-2001, we find the average 3PT% to be
    35.5%. The average for the top 38 teams from that time span was 38.3%. The average
    for the bottom 38 teams was 32.6%. That means the top and bottom 10% of teams
    were separated by just 5.7 percentage points. The other 310 teams from the last 13
    seasons were separated by less than 5.7 percentage points in 3PT%. Another way we
    can demonstrate this is with variance, a statistical measure of how spread out the
    values are in a given data set. Over the past thirteen years the variance in team 3PT%
    has been 0.0003. The variance in the percentage of a team’s field goal attempts that
    are three-pointers is 0.0008, nearly four times the variation. There is a lot of
    difference in the frequency with which teams shot three-pointers, but not nearly as
    much difference in their accuracy.

    This is a huge lesson for both offenses and defenses. Even if you are an average shooting
    team, you can make a huge difference for your offense just by taking good shots. The
    same thing is true defensively – you may only be able to depress an opponent’s shooting
    percentages so much, but you can force them to take difficult and inefficient shots. You
    may not be able to keep a team from shooting 40.0% on mid-range jumpers, but if
    you’ve kept your opponent away from the rim and left those mid-range jumpers as the
    only option, chances are you’ve done your job.

    Last week I shared some statistical analysis I did with my shot-selection metric, Expected
    Points Per Shot (XPPS), estimating that about 19.4% of the variation in Offensive Rating
    can be explained by shot-selection. Using a variation on the technique from that post,
    borrowed from Evan Zamir, we can illustrate exactly how much of a difference controlling
    an opponent’s shot selection makes. We know from that analysis that TO%, ORB%, XPPS
    and Shot-Making Difference explain 97% of Offensive Rating, and in the inverse,
    Defensive Rating. From that regression analysis we also know that those factors explain
    efficiency with this equation: ORTG or DRTG = (XPPS * 88.55655) + (Shot-Making
    Difference * 84.41452) + (ORB% * 48.4174) + (TO% * -128.14) + 15.22669.

    The first thing we do is create an imaginary team that is completely average with respect
    to each of those variables above – ORB%, TO%, XPPS and Shot-Making Difference. This
    completely average imaginary team would have a DRTG of 102.83. From here we can,
    one at a time, manipulate each variable, measuring the change in DRTG. What I did was
    begin by looking at FG% from each area of the floor. One at a time, I reduced the FG%
    from each area by one standard deviation, leaving the others at league average,
    measuring the change on Shot-Making Difference and the resulting Defensive Rating. I
    then did the same thing for the percentage of shot attempts from each area of the floor,
    measuring the change in XPPS and the resulting Defensive Rating. When I reduced the
    percentage of shot attempts from an area, I needed to replace those shot attempts in
    another area of the floor to make sure I still had 100% represented. By that I mean if
    I reduced the percentage of attempts that came at the rim, I had to redistribute that
    percentage of attempts to the other areas of the floor. I did this, not equally, but by
    using the relative percentages of the remaining areas. Here were the results:


    In the analysis that follows I’m going to repeatedly refer to controlling attempts and
    controlling accuracy. With each mention there is the implication that the last 13 years of
    NBA data provides an accurate representation of minimums, maximums and averages.
    Obviously, if you could force an opponent to miss every single corner-three attempt,
    accuracy would be the most important factor. But we must assume that teams are
    largely bound by the historical patterns which set our baseline expectations.

    A move of one standard deviation in each area is roughly equivalent to going from
    league average to the top or bottom five in each category. From the results we see
    that the biggest difference a team defense can make is trips to the free throw line as
    a percentage of their opponents’ scoring opportunities. The second biggest impact is to
    reduce your opponents’ shooting percentages on shots at the rim. The third biggest
    impact has to do with the percentage of opponent’s shot attempts that come from the
    mid-range, and requires a little explanation.

    To keep my method consistent...CONTINUE READING AT HICKORY HIGH




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Heat
    Brian Windhorst @windhorstESPN
    Tom Haberstroh @tomhaberstroh
    Ira Winderman @iraheatbeat
    Joseph Goodman @miamiheraldheat
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

    I'm hearing that Roy Hibbert, Paul George, and Lance Stephenson are out for the first quarter due to foul trouble. See you in the 2nd, fellas!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat



      Those damn chippy Pacers!
      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

        Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post


        Those damn chippy Pacers!
        That one still make my blood boil!

        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

          BEAT THE HEAT!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

            I hope West destroys Django.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

              Is the game on NBATV now? I set the recording to record at 12:30pm PST and it says that the game is some DLeague game.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

                Is the game on at 3pm EST or PST?
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

                  6pm est I think
                  "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

                    Ill be watching the FSN feed so I don't have to listen to *** kissing all night long.

                    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat


                        Now just don't play like crap Ian

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

                          Win or lose, I suspect Lance is going to entertain tonight. I would love it if he got DWade up in the air and drove his shoulder into the ribs...and we heard a very loud crack. ...just kidding...;<)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

                            I can see PG going at Lebron tonight and West will power inside early
                            Smothered Chicken!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 3/10/2013 Game Thread #63: Pacers Vs. Heat

                              Game is at 6 EST.

                              Yes, it's on NBATV
                              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X