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%?

    I also believe that probably one of the reasons why me and others don't believe in stats is because stats people in PD are not doing a good job in using them, when I see a post telling me that Reggie=DG because X stats say so and West=Karl Malone because Y stats say so then I'm going to believe that the stats they are using are garbage.

    Maybe if stats people here do a better job at reading the stats we would not be as skeptic, leaving bias behind while explaining stats could also help(see Tyler/Mcbob stats comparisons).
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
      Yes, there are.

      However, you are not one of them. Your point is that TS% is superfluous, not inaccurate. That a combination of glancing at FG%, 3FG%, and FT% combined by observation is just fine. TS% doesn't "turn over any new stones" in basketball analysis.

      I actually don't disagree with you much. It is a handy short-hand number, but isn't revolutionary or anything. I would rather see eFG% used as the primary stat, with a close range/mid range/3 point percentage split as the secondary instead of the traditional "FG% & 3FG%" splits we typically get.

      Anywho...
      All I saw were people accused of being eyes only guys in this thread but I don't recall anyone willingly accepting that label. But if you can find 'em it'll make this thread plenty more interesting when they reply....
      .
      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 FlavaDave View Post
        Yes, there are.

        However, you are not one of them. Your point is that TS% is superfluous, not inaccurate. That a combination of glancing at FG%, 3FG%, and FT% combined by observation is just fine. TS% doesn't "turn over any new stones" in basketball analysis.

        I actually don't disagree with you much. It is a handy short-hand number, but isn't revolutionary or anything. I would rather see eFG% used as the primary stat, with a close range/mid range/3 point percentage split as the secondary instead of the traditional "FG% & 3FG%" splits we typically get.

        Anywho...
        BTW... thanks for getting it and expressing my point more concisely than I did. You are exactly correct about what I've been trying to say.
        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%?

          About the only thing I feel is missing with the stats I've seen so far is that while it's a crazy-huge improvement on the shooting statistics, they don't divide contested and uncontested shots, which I think should be entirely possible with this technology once you pin down how you want to define contested. They really ought to because while it's difficult to get everyone to agree on what contested really is, you could probably be 'close enough' to justify logging it so long as you explicitly state how YOU are defining contested. I'd settle for just defining it as having an opponent within X.Y feet of you when you shoot. At least do that and call it 'in traffic' or something if they're not comfortable saying that's enough to define 'contested.'

          But other than that, this is amazing.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            I also believe that probably one of the reasons why me and others don't believe in stats is because stats people in PD are not doing a good job in using them, when I see a post telling me that Reggie=DG because X stats say so and West=Karl Malone because Y stats say so then I'm going to believe that the stats they are using are garbage.

            Maybe if stats people here do a better job at reading the stats we would not be as skeptic, leaving bias behind while explaining stats could also help(see Tyler/Mcbob stats comparisons).
            Maybe if the people who disagree would use something other than "I don't see that, using stats is stupid" it might be a discussion rather than a brawl.

            There will ALWAYS be differences of opinion, and dismissing the tool used by someone you disagree with isn't going to somehow make their opinion go away. Take the challenge to use countermanding stats instead of always saying "you must not watch the games" or "says the fanboy" or other condescending replies.
            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 Bball View Post
              All I saw were people accused of being eyes only guys in this thread but I don't recall anyone willingly accepting that label. But if you can find 'em it'll make this thread plenty more interesting when they reply....
              .
              Ture, but "calling people out" and trying to win debates isn't my thing. I am authentically interested in an eye-test vs. computer data exercise. I am authentically interested in sharing new ideas and approaches to understand the game I love.

              The exercise I devised was to find out two things:

              1) If people are able to accurately evaluate and categorize the ability to win contested rebounds live and on-the-fly. Even coaches need tape to evaluate games. Professional coaches can't even do this. We might have a few wunderkinds in our mists, perhaps the next Brad Stevens rags-to-riches hire?

              2) To potentially prove the point that the SportsVU data are the fruit of the decade-long "advance stats" movement in the NBA, and it is outstanding. That these stats are a mind-blowing way to get an accurate look at things we haven't been able to understand before. That these stats are incredibly useful at getting a sophisticated look at the "state of the NBA" without watching every single second of every single game.
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                Ture, but "calling people out" and trying to win debates isn't my thing. I am authentically interested in an eye-test vs. computer data exercise. I am authentically interested in sharing new ideas and approaches to understand the game I love.

                The exercise I devised was to find out two things:

                1) If people are able to accurately evaluate and categorize the ability to win contested rebounds live and on-the-fly. Even coaches need tape to evaluate games. Professional coaches can't even do this. We might have a few wunderkinds in our mists, perhaps the next Brad Stevens rags-to-riches hire?

                2) To potentially prove the point that the SportsVU data are the fruit of the decade-long "advance stats" movement in the NBA, and it is outstanding. That these stats are a mind-blowing way to get an accurate look at things we haven't been able to understand before. That these stats are incredibly useful at getting a sophisticated look at the "state of the NBA" without watching every single second of every single game.
                I can't disagree with a thing here.
                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
                  I can't disagree with a thing here.
                  Peace has finally come to the PD kingdom!

                  Want to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"?
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    And here's where I have a little problem with this response. Just saying "Troy Murphy is a bad basketball player" is too general a statement for the application of statistics. You have to define what you mean by "bad", because - contrary to Pacerfan belief - Troy actually could do things like score the ball and rebound. We discount the scoring because the team didn't win, and we discount the rebounding because we maintain the story that all his rebounds were easy or stolen, but I seriously doubt those tales because they are the very definition of remembering what we want to remember (and blaming the player for how he was used by the coach).

                    Only a little more refinement makes the statement testable - "Troy Murphy is a bad classic PF" - and suddenly there are all kinds of things you can use to test and compare - points in the paint, deflections, contested rebounds. In any case head-to-head defensive stats - which lag WAY behind the development of offensive stats, not least because they are hard to define objectively and to see in the course of a game - would show major flaws at that end of the floor.

                    I will always maintain that Troy had skills that, in the right hands and at the right time of the game, would be valuable. The problem was that he should have been a perimeter SF rather than a PF, but he didn't have the body (speed) for it.

                    I remember how people absolutely reviled Jeff Foster when he was forced into the position of being the Pacers' starting center. Once he was able to go back to coming off the bench and had the luxury to specialize in what he was best at, he amazingly "got better".
                    Let me refine my statment a bit by saying that Troy Murphy is not a player that helps you win a lot of baskeball games as a starter. If he's coming off of the bench to shoot 3s, or if he's the weak link in your starting lineup, you can be a good basketball team. More specifically, in particular matchups where you want to keep the opponent's 4 away from the rim, he's a good matchup. But, overall, starting Troy Murphy on your NBA basketball team is not a good idea if you plan to win a title. By example, the natural argument is that he would be great on the Heat. Well, Troy in his prime made $10 million dollars per season, so the Heat couldn't afford him, and even if they could, Carlos Boozer and David West would terrorize him in the post, or those teams could go small and put Taj Gibson or a Danny Granger on him and completely neutralize him on offense, and drive right by him on defense. He does not clean the offensive glass, so there's also no punishment for putting a small forward in the lineup against him.

                    Murphy's destiny was to be a 3rd or 4th big off of the bench for a contender, where he could cause matchup problems and prop up a second unit offense. But at the salary he commanded, he was never going to fill that role, and never be on a title contender in a meaningful capacity.

                    So, yeah, he was a bad basketball player in that, if he was on your books at $10 million per season, your GM could pretty much start shopping for his suit for the lottery on opening day.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      So, yeah, he was a bad basketball player in that, if he was on your books at $10 million per season, your GM could pretty much start shopping for his suit for the lottery on opening day.
                      Well, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms - I think who you play should have zip zero zilch nada to do with how much they make. Salary is the FOs problem. Putting the best team on the floor is the Coach's problem.

                      But that's even more off-topic than this thread has already gotten...
                      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 FlavaDave View Post
                        It is stupid how geeked out I am to finally dig into this stuff. The huge array of custom filters is a surprise and very appreciated.
                        They are public? Can you link?

                        Comment


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

                          By the way, when did pacersdigest turn into clutchfans? I'm surprised to open PD and see a 17 page long thread about stats. I would expect that in the Daryl Morey land, not here.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                            They are public? Can you link?
                            Sure! nba.com/stats
                            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                            RSS Feed
                            Subscribe via iTunes

                            Comment


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

                              If you want to get closer to the meatier new stats, I'd start with this link: http://stats.nba.com/playerTracking.html With any of those categories, click "View All" to get to the best stuff.

                              Comment


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

                                So nba.com is getting serious, huh. Nice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X