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 BillS View Post
    what part of individual scoring efficiency (which is what TS% is
    That's what the creators of it say it is. But maybe its more like "scoring pot pouri items" or "extraneous shooting tidbits." They are subjectively placing a word on the following concept:

    0.5 * points === ( 2*(2PT FGM) + 3*(3PT FGM) + 1*(FTM) ) / 2 === (2PT FGM) + 1.5(3PT FGM) + 0.5(FTM)
    "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 Bball View Post
      I'm still wondering if knee issues changed Danny's game more than anything. Or maybe it was a hangover from O'Brien.
      I hate to use stats but...... Danny's shot attempts per game were on the decline way before his knee issues popped up.
      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%?

        0.5 * points === ( 2*(2PT FGM) + 3*(3PT FGM) + 1*(FTM) ) / 2 === (2PT FGM) + 1.5(3PT FGM) + 0.5(FTM)

        Basketball, is really a simple and beautiful game.

        No, really it is.

        Believe me.
        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 McKeyFan View Post
          That's what the creators of it say it is. But maybe its more like "scoring pot pouri items" or "extraneous shooting tidbits." They are subjectively placing a word on the following concept:

          0.5 * points === ( 2*(2PT FGM) + 3*(3PT FGM) + 1*(FTM) ) / 2 === (2PT FGM) + 1.5(3PT FGM) + 0.5(FTM)
          Seriously, then, say why it ISN'T representative of efficiency. What is your own definition of efficiency and why doesn't this get it? Is it too much, or too little? Do you think that the guy who shoots 40% all from 2 is exactly as efficient as the guy who shoots 40% all from 3? Why or why not? Is there an adjustment needed to compare them? Or, if you don't want to use numbers, tell us what you look for on the floor to determine efficiency - a perfect shooting motion even if the guy is in a slump? Just saying "I know it when I see it" is a cop-out, because it doesn't help anyone else see what you see.
          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


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

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            what do you think TS% is missing?
            Well, if I am going to think about the concept of efficiency, I might consider the following:

            - How quickly did he shoot and not allow better opportunities to emerge?
            - How many times did he shoot when someone else was more open?
            - How many times did he make the shot when it really mattered, like end of games?
            - How many times did he make the shot when momentum was swinging in the other team's favor?
            - How many times did he take a shot when another teammate was hot and should have been fed the ball?
            - How many times did he tell his teammates to pass him the ball, thus creating tensions on the team?

            There's a start. Some of those are measurable and some aren't. When I am thinking about an "efficient" shooter and scorer, there are many, many things that could be part of the "equation." And I think the human mind can identify and apply a zillion more factors, even unconsciously, then a stat machine.
            Last edited by McKeyFan; 11-06-2013, 04:33 PM.
            "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 Eindar View Post
              I think Danny vs. Lance has a lot of moving parts, such that even if you try to simply argue which player is better in a vacuum, there's a whole other argument to be made as to how each player fits with George, and how each player fits with the bench. I think there's simply too many variables for either side to definitively say that one should start. Trust the coach to know his business, as he is the only one who will see a large enough sample to make the decision.

              As for a "chucker", I always viewed it as someone who shoots at lot at a relatively low percentage. And, just because you are a chucker, doesn't necessarily mean you are an overall bad player, but it is certainly a hole in your game. Josh Smith and Monta Ellis are current chuckers, and I think Antoine Walker and Allen Iverson are prime examples of historic chuckers. I don't think Granger should be mentioned in the same breath with those players. I think that the JOB years have tainted the image of Danny, because he was being asked to take shots early in the shot clock if he was given an open shot from an area where he felt comfortable taking the shot. As we found, there are problems with that philosophy, although maybe that approach works if you have a more talented team, particularly on the defensive end.
              Once again, 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 BillS View Post
                Just saying "I know it when I see it" is a cop-out, because it doesn't help anyone else see what you see.
                Not necessarily. It just may be that some things in life are not all that explainable, but are true and identifiable. Like art. And the color red.
                "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 McKeyFan View Post
                  Well, if I am going to think about the concept of efficiency, I might consider the following:

                  - How quickly did he shoot and not allow better opportunities to emerge?
                  - How many times did he shoot when someone else was more open?
                  - How many times did he make the shot when it really mattered, like end of games?
                  - How many times did he make the shot when momentum was swinging in the other team's favor?
                  - How many times did he take a shot when another teammate was hot and should have been fed the ball?
                  - How many times did he tell his teammates to pass him the ball, thus creating tensions on the team?

                  There's a start. Some of those are measurable and some aren't. When I am thinking about an "efficient" shooter and scorer, there are many, many things that could be part of the "equation." And I think the human mind can identify and apply a zillion more factors, even unconsciously, then a stat machine.

                  If a player take a shot, and hits that shot, he's not 100% efficient, because you need to know whether or not his shot created tension with his teammate? We've officially jumped the shark.
                  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%?

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    If a player take a shot, and hits that shot, he's not 100% efficienct, because you need to know whether or not his shot created tension with his teammate? We've officially jumped the shark.
                    Yes, in fact. And also when he misses it. Laugh all you want, but that concept will not be as funny as you might think when Granger returns.
                    "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 McKeyFan View Post
                      Well, if I am going to think about the concept of efficiency, I might consider the following:

                      - How quickly did he shoot and not allow better opportunities to emerge?
                      - How many times did he shoot when someone else was more open?
                      - How many times did he make the shot when it really mattered, like end of games?
                      - How many times did he make the shot when momentum was swinging in the other team's favor?
                      - How many times did he take a shot when another team was hot and should have been fed the ball?
                      - How many times did he tell his teammates to pass him the ball, thus creating tensions on the team?

                      There's a start. Some of those are measurable and some aren't. When I am thinking about an "efficient" shooter and scorer, there are many, many things that could be part of the "equation." And I think the human mind can identify and factor in a zillion more factors, even unconsciously, then a stat machine.
                      Thanks for the answer, but I think you are broadening the concept of efficiency. Efficiency in physics is how well energy input is used to get a particular output of work. An engine's efficiency doesn't take into account how efficiently the fuel source can be made, for instance - that would be an efficiency measure at a higher order.

                      TS% is measuring how well a single player scores when given the ball. I think what you are trying to do is to consider it a higher order statistic trying to measure how well a single player plays within the offense, which it isn't meant to be.

                      As you say, it takes multiple measurements (and things that aren't currently measured) to come up with the information you are considering. However, the immeasurable things that you would have solely determined by the eye can easily be observationally biased - "how often did he take a shot when another player was hot and should have been passed the ball" first assumes hot streaks are facts - extremely arguable, second assumes that all players have the same court vision as an outside observer and nothing is blocked, third assumes the player in question isn't supposed to be shooting rather than passing, and so forth and so on. And unless you actually tally the number of times you see this negative behavior and tally the number of times you don't see the negative behavior, you can't be sure you aren't seeing a pattern that isn't really there or being biased by what you want to see.

                      A lot of fans are observationally biased. We have people thinking MDJ shouldn't be allowed to set foot on a basketball floor, thus exposing the sheer stupidity of coaches like Thibs who keep letting him do it. We have any number of players being claimed as clutch and then actually shown to miss more last shots than people remember them missing. The biggest reason for statistics is that they are neutral and force people to decide if they really saw what they thought they saw.
                      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


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

                        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                        Are those FGA being weighted for minutes played? I feel like Paul is playing more minutes than Danny would have during that 19.1 season. Of course, i also think that Paul has a LOT more options in terms of passing, so maybe that's a bad comparison, too.
                        Let's see. Paul is attempting 17.5 FGA in 36.5 MPG. 17.5 / 36.5 = 0.479

                        So, he is roughly attempting 0.48 shots per minute.

                        Granger attempted 19.1 FGA in 36.2 MPG in the 08-09 season. 19.1 / 36.2 = 0.527

                        So, Danny was roughly attempting 0.53 shots per minute.

                        Danny was shooting more but neither number is particularly huge.

                        If we want a really big number let's look at Kobe in 05-06. He attempted 27.2 FGA in 41 MPG. 27.2 / 41 = 0.663

                        So, he was attempting a little more than 0.66 shots per minutes. Now, that's an extremity.
                        Last edited by Nuntius; 11-06-2013, 05:35 PM. Reason: I forgot to write Kobe's name
                        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
                          Yes, in fact. And also when he misses it. Laugh all you want, but that concept will not be as funny as you might think when Granger returns.
                          What if he was supposed to take it? Whose "efficiency" is the problem, then - the guy taking the shot or the guy getting tense because HE wasn't allowed to take the shot?

                          That's not efficiency, that's chemistry in the locker room.
                          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


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

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            Yes, in fact. And also when he misses it. Laugh all you want, but that concept will not be as funny as you might think when Granger returns.


                            I agree tension between teammates is an important factor to look at, but it has absolutely nothing to do with shooting efficiency.
                            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%?

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              What if he was supposed to take it?
                              What if he wasn't?
                              "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 Bball View Post
                                I think Granger took a fair number of shots that were rushed, ill advised due to the game situation, etc. Not smart offensive basketball.

                                I haven't really seen PG do that this year to the degree I felt Granger came to be doing it.
                                JOB was an awful coach that encourages his players to take those shots. So, the players took them.

                                Vogel is a very smart coach that has encouraged his team to play at a slower pace and work the shot clock. So, the players are doing that.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X