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

Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

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

  • Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

    Computers suck?

    NBA centers represent a disappearing position, stricken from the All-Star ballots just last season. I've received a few queries about using traditional positional designations as a basis for ranking players, and I understand the concerns. However, I'm not in the camp of those who believes that positions no longer exist.
    Percent of WARP by height, 3-point era
    Height 80s 90s 00s 10s
    6-3 and under 20% 26% 25% 24%
    6-4 to 6-6 20% 19% 18% 14%
    6-7 to 6-9 33% 27% 31% 29%
    6-10 and above 27% 27% 26% 32%

    There's no denying that there has been an evolution of where NBA production and value comes from over the years. That has been perhaps the dominant theme of this rankings series. Consider this chart, which breaks down WARP by height during the 3-point era.

    The average height in the NBA has barely changed over time, but the value derived from big men is higher than ever. What's disappearing is the prototypical 2-guard, who offers neither elite quickness nor elite length. Although the league is getting increasingly small, big men are as important as ever, whether you call them centers or not.

    As the depth charts have filled, so have the forecasts generated by ATH coalesced. ATH, you may recall, is the projection module of NBAPET, my system of integrated spreadsheets for tracking, evaluating and forecasting all things NBA.

    With the pieces falling into place, let's take an early stab at ranking players by position. Keep in mind that assigning a primary position to a player in today's NBA is often more art than science. Players are ranked according to ATH's forecasted WARP, or wins above replacement level, which accounts for a player's efficiency, volume of production and team context.

    Here are the projected top 10 centers for the 2013-14 NBA season:

    PG | SG | SF | PF | C

    Howard

    1. Dwight Howard, Houston Rockets
    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 13.2

    Howard is coming off his worst season since his rookie year, and ATH has him bouncing back to a level roughly equivalent to his third season. Because of his history of back trouble, you can't dismiss last year's dip in rebound rate as a fluke. However, his block rate was higher, so not all the athletic indicators were down. Howard's foul-drawing rate is always hard to read because of how often he is intentionally fouled, but it was strong last year as well. In his last fully healthy season, Howard put up 20.5 WARP, and that's the championship-caliber center the Rockets hoped they signed this summer.
    Drummond

    2. Andre Drummond, Detroit Pistons

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 10.1

    Drummond was a monster in limited minutes last year and he was a monster during the Orlando Summer League. Obviously, the ATH system is highly enamored of his abilities. Much of his projected value stems from huge block and rebound rates. He's also a standout in foul-drawing and steals, which makes him 4-for-4 in the categories ATH looks at as athletic markers. Like many a raw, athletic big man before him, Drummond's weak spot is at the line, where he is forecast to hit just 37 percent of his free throws this season.

    Drummond's playing time projection also is murky. I've got him as the starting center on Detroit's depth chart, with Greg Monroe moving over to the 4 and Josh Smith to the 3. If that alignment doesn't work out because of spacing problems, new coach Maurice Cheeks will have some hard decisions to make.

    Cousins

    3. DeMarcus Cousins, Sacramento Kings
    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 8.7

    Cousins has become gradually more accurate from the field as his career progressed but his overall value, strong as it is, is held back by traits identified with lack of discipline: shot selection, turnovers and fouls. The important thing is that the trends in all these areas have generally been positive, with the exception of turnovers. Cousins needs to stop undermining his court time with foul trouble, but if new coach Mike Malone can use Cousins in a way that accentuates his strengths, the upside is immense.

    Horford

    4. Al Horford, Atlanta Hawks

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 8.3

    After an injury-shortened 2011-12 season, Horford was mostly healthy last year and had a typical Horford season. During three of the past four years, he has posted winning percentages between .558 and .565, marking his career .603 season in 2010-11 as an outlier. Horford can approach that level of value simply by fixing a strangely broken free throw stroke after shooting 9 percent worse than any other season of his career. Perhaps the loss of confidence at the charity stripe explains why Horford became more jump-shot oriented than ever before.

    Noah

    5. Joakim Noah, Chicago Bulls

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 8.1

    Noah became a central figure in Chicago's offense last season in Derrick Rose's absence, with the offense often running through Noah's fine passing skills from the high post. That led to a spike in assist rate that won't be repeated with Rose back in action. At the same time, a return to typical levels of usage and a focus on offensive rebounding can up Noah's efficiency and help him avoid a slight, age-related decline. One thing seems certain, and coach Tom Thibodeau has said as much: Noah's minutes will be managed more carefully in the coming season.

    Monroe

    6. Greg Monroe, Detroit Pistons

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 8.0

    We're still trying to figure out what Monroe will be, and with Drummond ready to break out, this is the time to find out. Monroe's WARP totals in three seasons thus far have been 6.6, 12.3 and 8.4 respectively. Last season, Monroe's efficiency fell because of his lack of a consistent face-up shot and insistence on trying more of them. Over a third of Monroe's attempts as a pro have come outside the vicinity of the rim, and he's hit just 32 percent of those shots. He needs to become a midrange threat to fit with Drummond and take advantage of his solid passing skills. Monroe improving his stroke might be the most important piece of Detroit's puzzle.

    Jefferson

    7. Al Jefferson, Charlotte Bobcats

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 7.8

    Sometimes I think we become so fixated on what Jefferson isn't good at -- defense -- that we lose sight of the fact that he's a very good interior scorer during a time in which that skill is in short supply. It feels like Jefferson has been around a long time, but in fact he's almost the same age as Noah. Sure, Jefferson needs to excise some of the bad jumpers out of his game but then again, he's always stuck on bad teams starving for the points. Unfortunately, that may not change right away in Charlotte.

    McGee

    8. JaVale McGee, Denver Nuggets

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 7.3

    Statistically, McGee was underused by George Karl last season, but the fact of the matter is that Denver's starting five functioned better with Kosta Koufos in the middle. Well, Koufos is gone, as is Karl, and this is the season we'll find out if McGee can turn his fine part-time production into a full-time, star-making role on a good team.

    Gasol

    9. Marc Gasol, Memphis Grizzlies

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 7.2

    Gasol really came into his own last season and his projected decline is one of the more perplexing results ATH spit out this summer. It's not a defensive regression -- his defensive rating is actually forecast to improve from 106.1 to 105.4. At 7-1, 265 pounds, Gasol is part of a distinct historical group, one that portends a regression in athletic factors at age 29. He's still a fine player, but the Grizzlies can't really withstand a four-win decline from him.

    Bosh

    10. Chris Bosh, Miami Heat

    Projected 2013-14 WARP: 6.8

    Bosh is a jump-shooting big man, soft on the boards and isn't an elite rim protector. He's also capable of doing much more than he's asked to do on the Heat; just how much is no longer clear after his three seasons as the third option in Miami. One of the most interesting stories in the Miami season will be whether Dwyane Wade is babied through the regular season, and if so, whether Bosh will be able to pick up the slack.

    Next five: Anderson Varejao, Pau Gasol, Tyson Chandler, Brook Lopez, DeAndre Jordan

    The solid but unspectacular rankings of four of these five centers can be explained by age, injuries, a skill set too slanted toward one end of the floor, or all the above. But all of them can help teams win.

    The one player I want to pinpoint here is Lopez, who I think subjectively should be in the top 10. Lopez went from two seasons of just under a .500 winning percentage (in 82 and five games, respectively) to .629 last year. The most impressive part of that gain was his improved rebounding and shot-blocking, and I'd be surprised to see him regress as ATH forecasts him to do. Like all the Nets, his usage rate is projected to fall because of the new lineup, but if Jason Kidd is smart, he'll keep the offense focused around Lopez and Deron Williams, while Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett fill roles. If that happens, Lopez is easily a top-five center.

    Also notable: Roy Hibbert, Andrew Bynum

    The players I get the most guff about are the ones freshest in our memories. Hibbert was so good against Miami in the Eastern Conference finals that we forget how rough most of his regular season was, when he hit just 44.9 percent on 2-point shots. Two of Hibbert's last three seasons have been similar, so ATH's pessimism is understandable. While his offensive performance is variable, Hibbert is clearly one of the most valuable defenders in the league and I still think we have a way to go to properly value that kind of player statistically.


    As for Bynum, I think we all understand what's holding back his projection. Keep in mind Bynum's 2011-12 WARP, before last year's missed campaign: 12.1. A healthy Bynum is an All-Star player.
    Last edited by DJVendetta; 08-09-2013, 05:32 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

    Get the **** out of here with that ****.

    The stats are LYING!!

    Comment


    • #3
      WTF?!? Roy is in the running for best center in the league.

      Comment


      • #4
        I can buy an argument that Roy is not THE top center.

        I could even understand an argument that he wasn't in the top 5, though I would disagree.

        Not even in the top half????

        Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk 2
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #5
          Drummond? Really? *Facepalm*
          Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

            The author said himself that the system that he uses (ATH and WARP) has a way to go before properly valuing a player like Hibbert.

            So, we should just take them for what they are. Inaccurate projections that may or may not happen.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

              I'm not gonna get too upset about these rankings because they are completely irrelevant, but this is comical. The only Pacers that cracked the top 10 at any positions are Granger at 6 and Paul George at 7 for SFs... See an issue there? What's even more frustrating is that Kawhi Leonard gets ranked as the 3rd best SF.

              David West wasn't even considered a top 15 PF... meaning he is a below average power forward. This stuff is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                What the heck is "WARP"? Sounds like the call letters for a 60's underground radio station.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                  For what it is worth I do think a lot of people tend to forget Hibbert's regular season around here. Roy is absolutely great on the defensive end and inconsistent at best at the offensive end. We had Miami, NY and Atlanta in the playoffs and Hibbert feasted on weak front lines. Where should Hibbert be ranked? I am not really sure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                    So the Pacers were the 3rd best team in the NBA, even though none of our players were even in the Top 6 at their position. LOL. Javale McGee over Roy Hibbert is an absolute JOKE. This guy is a moron! Good thing I don't pay for that insider BS!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                      This list is hilarious.

                      I would say:
                      1. Dwight
                      2. Hibbert
                      3. Lopez
                      4. Gasol
                      5. Bynum

                      Can't believe I forgot Gasol the first time.
                      Last edited by PGisthefuture; 08-09-2013, 10:15 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                        Roy
                        Dwight
                        Marc Gasol
                        Noah
                        Duncan
                        Lopez
                        Bosh
                        Horford
                        Jefferson
                        Bynum
                        Garnett
                        Pau Gasol
                        Chandler
                        Cousins
                        Monroe


                        Drummond hasn't proved anything yet.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                          I'm convinced that Warp is compeletly useless. The title is "Projected top centers", if this guy thinks this is any indication of what the top centers will be next year then he's a fool. The odds of Hibbert being in the top 3 are almost 100%.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                            For what it is worth I do think a lot of people tend to forget Hibbert's regular season around here. Roy is absolutely great on the defensive end and inconsistent at best at the offensive end. We had Miami, NY and Atlanta in the playoffs and Hibbert feasted on weak front lines. Where should Hibbert be ranked? I am not really sure.
                            I haven't forgotten how bad he played during the first half of the season but he was our best player after the all star break and the only consistent player we had for the last 25 games or so. It wasn't just the playoffs that Roy played well in, he carried this team at the end of the season.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Projecting Top 10 Centers in the NBA (ESPN Insider)

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              I haven't forgotten how bad he played during the first half of the season but he was our best player after the all star break and the only consistent player we had for the last 25 games or so. It wasn't just the playoffs that Roy played well in, he carried this team at the end of the season.
                              And he was dealing w a wrist injury during the time he sucked last year...

                              I am not impressed with this WARP(ed) stat...

                              I would honestly rather hear his own personal biased opinions...
                              Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X