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

True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

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

  • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Larry's #2 in Kevin Pritchard is a big advanced stat guy, so Larry must put quite the amount of confidence in them. I think Larry probably uses common sense and relies on both.
    Use both?! Common sense?!

    HOW DARE YOU, SIR?!!

    Comment


    • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      And if I want to know who won the game but I wasn't able to watch it I'm SOL because I shouldn't use the numbers defined by who made more points.

      See, I can do the same thing.

      No one is saying stats are for everything. But they can help you in your thinking of whether that quick, bad shot was an anomaly (because the player makes most of his quick shots) or if it was usual (because the player doesn't make quick shots). Sitting a player in the habit of taking quick, bad shots is a good idea. Sitting one who took a shot that looked bad but was actually where he makes it most of the time is not a good idea.
      So I can't watch the game or games of the team I follow and know that when a player takes a quick, bad shot it is an anomaly versus simply something to expect from them because it happens frequently? Or it is something they frequently do in a certain situation? I need advanced metrics to tell me that.... got it.
      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: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Why not? Instead of completely dismissing the stat by pointing out an outlier, wouldn't it rather demand an explanation why the problem with the stat for the outlier applies to the player in question?
        Sounds good. I'm losing track of all the discussions on this, but it seems like the stats proponents are NOT doing that, but instead just saying the stat doesn't tell if a player is good or not.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post

          We're all still a little traumatized by a previous coach who seemed to rely too much on statistics to evaluate his own players, but that doesn't mean they are somehow useless in that context.


          Well done.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            Except that advanced stats always indicated that Murphy is not that helpful for winning basketball games
            How does he do with TS%?
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              The stat was brought up to combat the claim that Granger is just a chucker. You know, using stats to combat the bias people have in their eyes. And then people started arguing against the stat, because it just can't be true that Danny is actually an efficient scorer, and just not a chucker.

              Which is why this eyeball is the best argument is kinda loopy, because we are human and our biasness influences what we see. Numbers remove those bias, and give us cold hard numbers, that have no feelings about a situation.
              If you don't think Danny was a chucker, you're just some virgin reading math books!

              Comment


              • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Why in the world are we talking about Troy Murphy? It's a strawman argument, because NO ONE is saying Troy Murphy is good because of his TS%.

                Let me repeat that again, NO ONE is saying Troy Murphy is good because he has a good TS%. How hard is it to understand that TS% doesn't mean good basketball player? The whole point of this thread is to put the stat into proper context, so this Troy Murphy argument doesn't have to be had. Good lord.
                Apparently, it's extremely hard for some people.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  How does he do with TS%?
                  54.1% for his career which is above average. But that doesn't mean that he is a good player. Heck, it doesn't even mean that he is an average player.

                  You are misinterpreting TS% once again. It is NOT a measure of how good a player is. It never was and no one claimed that it is.

                  So, I honestly cannot understand why you still continue with this strawman of an argument.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                    As with everything, the truth lies in the middle. If you only use your eyes, you will occasionally misjudge a player, either for good or for ill. There might be a guy who doesn't look that great, but perhaps he has an elite skill that your team is lacking, making the sum of his contribution better than what you actually see on the floor because the other players play better. Likewise, if you only rely on advanced stats, you are going to miss out on some nuances to a players game that don't show up in the stats, such as, "hey, this guy likes to go to strip clubs while carrying a gun" or "if someone throws a beer on this guy, he's going to drag our franchise down for the next decade."

                    The point is, use the stats as an objective way to quantify a particular aspect of a player or team. Use your eyes to see if that player subjectively is helping your team win. I think as we go forward, there will be fewer and fewer players that cause large disagreement between stats guys and eyeball guys.

                    Just for fun, can we have the stats and eyeball guys give their opinioins on two players who have had interesting statistical careers? Namely, Shane Battier and Rudy Gay. My feelings are that they eyeball guys should love Battier and be relatively neutral on Gay, whereas the stats guys should me neutral on Battier and hate Gay.

                    Back on topic: TS% is a great stat to see who is offensively efficient. It says nothing about any other aspect of their game. And to answer the topic title, there's no debate, TS% is a more accurate reflection of a player's ability to score the ball than FG%.
                    THANK YOU!
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      The stat was originally brought up to show Granger is a better player than perhaps some people think.
                      NO! That's simply wrong, my friend. The stat was never brought up to show Granger is a better player than perhaps some people think. The stat was only brought up to show that Granger was an efficient scorer. That's it. Because that's the only thing that TS% measures. It doesn't measure how good a player is. It measures how efficient a scorer is and only that.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                        Here is the disconnect I'm seeing.... Some of you are arguing for stats above common sense. That might not be your intention but that is what it comes down to reading the text. I'm not saying the stats have no value, but their value needs to be in context. A player's efficiency stats might be great but what if they don't line up with the big picture? You analyze the stats but you don't live and die by them. If you argue too much for the stats then you're going to get push back because there's a reason the games are played on the court.

                        One person's bias might be another person's deeper understanding.... And stats get trotted out at times when their context is dubious at best. Then you read the defense of the stats and you question if the person using the stats is even dealing with a full understanding of the stat, let alone the context for which is is ultimately intended.
                        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: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Here is the disconnect I'm seeing.... Some of you are arguing for stats above common sense. That might not be your intention but that is what it comes down to reading the text.
                          Really? I write use both with common sense, and you read it as stats above common sense?

                          It's like talking to a brick wall at this point.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                            Yup.

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            NO! That's simply wrong, my friend. The stat was never brought up to show Granger is a better player than perhaps some people think. The stat was only brought up to show that Granger was an efficient scorer. That's it. Because that's the only thing that TS% measures. It doesn't measure how good a player is. It measures how efficient a scorer is and only that.
                            Now on that note, since he is a good defender based on the few measurements we do have, and he is an efficient scorer, and a high volume scorer on top of that... To go along with adequate defense I WOULD argue that he's better than most people think. But it takes gathering different info to come to this conclusion.

                            See how that works.

                            Comment


                            • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              NO! That's simply wrong, my friend. The stat was never brought up to show Granger is a better player than perhaps some people think. The stat was only brought up to show that Granger was an efficient scorer. That's it. Because that's the only thing that TS% measures. It doesn't measure how good a player is. It measures how efficient a scorer is and only that.
                              I disagree with this... the stat was brought up, or certainly latched onto and defended by some, to show that Granger was a better player than he was allegedly getting credit for. The stat got misused, misapplied, and misinterpreted along the way. Regardless of it's first mention, that's where it ended up.
                              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: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                Some of you are arguing for stats above common sense.
                                No. No one is arguing for stats above common sense. The problem is that some of you completely dismiss stats because they disagree with your "eyeballs" or something.

                                Eindar is absolutely right. We should use both. I always use both. But it is just so annoying when people completely dismiss a stat simply because it doesn't agree with their bias in disliking a certain player.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X