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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

      Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

      Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

      Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


      So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

      Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
      how exactly are two players who take the same amount of shots, but only one is a chucker?

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Many times I don't need stats... I just watch the players play the game....
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
          I seriously have to question people's basketball knowledge, if they think 3 games worth of shooting out does 8-9 YEARS worth of it. Arguing that Lance is a better shooter than Danny, because of his shooting percentage this year, might be the dumbest argument yet.

          Sorry if it's harsh, but it's true. You might as well break out the dart board and blindfold, and pick your arguments that way.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

            Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

            Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

            Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


            So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

            Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
            I don't think that's accurate.

            I think the stat attempts to allow for a comparison between jump shooters and players who play inside.

            I know we've all been scarred by Jim O'brien. But shooters are important in the game of basketball. Spreading the court, is an important part of the game. The team doesn't have to run down the court and chuck a three pointer every time.

            And I think your scenarios are only one side of the coin. What if it isn't a good passing team, and attempting to get a better shot would likely lead to a turnover? What if the team's best offense is an offensive rebound?

            Basketball works best when there is balance. Efg is just simply a way to value a shooters performance in comparison to someone who makes layups.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
              Probably play defense and get some blocks. Lance gets a bit lazy on D still.
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Yes you are. You tried dismissing the fact by coming up with the lame comparison between Brent Barry and MJ, and when that got shut down you merely changed tactics on how to try to devalue the statistic by trying to argue how it's figured. If you're valuing the stat, then there's no reason to sit back and try to argue why it's wrong to put value on it, which is the entire point of the post I quoted.

                I didn't come up with any lame comparison between Brent Barry and Jordan. Was just stating what the statistics say. What's there to shut down? Brent Barry is higher than Jordan on that list, is he not?

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  I enjoy how people try to tear down certain advance stats by harping on a minor flaw (that someone else probably pointed out) or changing it's context, but ignore the massive flaws in any "mainstream" statistic.


                  Obviously, FG% is better than TS% because it's on ESPN. Nevermind that ESPN is essentially useless for analysis of any sort. grade A logic

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I didn't come up with any lame comparison between Brent Barry and Jordan. Was just stating what the statistics say. What's there to shut down? Brent Barry is higher than Jordan on that list, is he not?
                    Sorry, it wasn't Brent Barry vs. Jordan, it was Barry vs. Jordan, Shaq, Dirk, LeBron, and Bird.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I agree with you. The stats clearly show that Brent Barry was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history. Better than the likes of Shaq, Dirk, Lebron, Jordan, and Larry Bird.

                    I wonder why he's not going into the HOF? Bizarre.
                    You've spent the last three pages trying to either trying to distort what the statistic means, and after that didn't work out, how it's calculated.
                    Last edited by Since86; 11-04-2013, 11:54 AM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      All stats have flaws. There are better examples that show TS% flaws, for example. That's why it's always better to look at the bigger picture instead of just 1 or 2 stats that "prove" one's point.

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Many times I don't need stats... I just watch the players play the game....
                      Maybe... but wouldn't it be more useful to apply stats and eyeballs together? The whole point of the stats is to create a better understanding of the game, after all.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I seriously have to question people's basketball knowledge, if they think 3 games worth of shooting out does 8-9 YEARS worth of it. Arguing that Lance is a better shooter than Danny, because of his shooting percentage this year, might be the dumbest argument yet.

                        Sorry if it's harsh, but it's true. You might as well break out the dart board and blindfold, and pick your arguments that way.
                        RIGHT NOW, in November of 2013, LANCE is the better shooter!!! Danny hasn't played in a year and a half, and you are making a BIG assumption that Danny will be the same player he was. Besides, Danny was always a volume scorer. Never an automatic shooter like Ray Allen or Kyle Korver. FACT: Lance is shooting lights out RIGHT NOW. Until or IF Danny comes back, YOU cannot assume he is Reggie Miller 2.0
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                          Probably play defense and get some blocks. Lance gets a bit lazy on D still.
                          Danny was NEVER known for his defense. Lance CAN defend and is a terrific rebounder for a SG
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
                            Let's review how well both have shot the 3 ball since Lance arrived, as well as look at their career %'s.

                            October 2010:
                            3 games, Danny averaged 3.7/8.0 for 45.8% (that's FG% not eFG% by the way)
                            Lance DNP

                            November 2010:
                            13 games, Danny averaged 2.5/6.1 for 40.5%
                            Lance DNP

                            December 2010:
                            14 games, Danny averaged 1.5/5.5 for 27.3%
                            Lance DNP

                            January 2011:
                            14 games, Danny averaged 2.2/4.9 for 45.6%
                            Lance DNP

                            February 2011:
                            13 games, Danny averaged 1.9/4.5 for 42.4%
                            1 game, Lance averaged 0.0/0.0 for 0%

                            March 2011:
                            17 games, Danny averaged 1.5/4.6 for 33.3%
                            11 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.5 for 0%

                            April 2011:
                            5 games, Danny averaged 2.2/4.4 for 50%
                            Lance DNP

                            ---
                            December 2011:
                            4 games, Danny averaged 1.8/4.5 for 38.9%
                            3 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.3 for 0%

                            January 2012:
                            15 games, Danny averaged 1.7/5.1 for 32.9%
                            14 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.5 for 0.0%

                            February 2012:
                            13 games, Danny averaged 2.2/5.9 for 36.4%
                            14 games, Lance averaged 0.1/0.8 for 18.2%

                            March 2012:
                            17 games, Danny averaged 1.6/4.6 for 35.9%
                            7 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.7 for 0%

                            April 2012:
                            13 games, Danny averaged 2.7/5.7 for 47.3%
                            4 games, Lance averaged 0.5/1.5 for 33.3%

                            ---
                            October 2012:
                            Danny DNP
                            1 game, Lance 1.0/1.0 100%

                            November 2012:
                            Danny DNP
                            15 games, Lance 0.9/2.3 for 37.1%

                            December 2012:
                            Danny DNP
                            13 games, Lance 0.7/1.8 for 39.1%

                            January 2012:
                            Danny DNP
                            15 games, Lance 0.8/2.4 for 33.3%

                            February 2012:
                            3 games, Danny 0.3/2.3 for 14.3%
                            12 games, Lance 1.1/3.3 for 32.5%

                            March 2013:
                            2 games, Danny 0.5/1.5 for 33.3%
                            15 games, Lance 0.5/2.2 for 21.2%

                            April 2013:
                            Danny DNP
                            7 games, Lance 1.0/2.9 for 35%

                            ---
                            October 2013:
                            Danny DNP
                            2 games, Lance 2.0/3.5 for 57.1%

                            November 2013 (as of 11/04/2013)
                            Danny DNP
                            1 game, Lance 5.0/7.0 for 71.4%

                            Career Three Point %:
                            Danny .384
                            Lance .316

                            Lance has certainly gotten better, but if you think these first 3 games represent his normal 3p% from now on, you're on your own island with that opinion.

                            http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.htm...Season=2010-11
                            http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.htm...Season=2010-11
                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...grangda01.html
                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...stephla01.html

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              Many times I don't need stats... I just watch the players play the game....
                              Aye, and it's amazing how posters hop back and forth between "I don't need stats" and "here's some stats" depending on how well the stats back up their eyes...

                              And otherwise, saying you watch the games means nothing on a forum where everybody is watching the games.

                              Also, spoiler-alert:

                              Statistics are a collection of observations put down on paper! They are 100% generated BY WATCHING THE GAME.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                All stats have flaws. There are better examples that show TS% flaws, for example. That's why it's always better to look at the bigger picture instead of just 1 or 2 stats that "prove" one's point.
                                I wouldn't say this is a flaw- TS% is basically bullet proof.

                                But TS% doesn't account for turnovers. So while I generally refer to a player's "scoring efficiency", a player could still have a higher TS% but turn the ball over too much.

                                If it is only taken at face value, it is a good statistic. There's much more to the game is all.

                                If a guy "ballstops" on offense, even if he is efficient when scoring, maybe he slows down the offense on the whole, while putting up his own good numbers. This is all hypothetical, but to be quite clear, I would never argue that one player is better than another ONLY because of that one particular statistic.

                                My arguments earlier, were simply try explain the usefulness of that one particular statistic by pointing out the flaws in everyones argument.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X