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 aamcguy View Post
    I don't think there's really a problem with using statistics to back up your position. It's doubtful that anybody ever fully picks a stance with no prior information and then goes out and finds a stat that backs him up. I would guess that even most people who base all of their opinions off of the "eye test" at least glance at a box score to confirm a hypothesis they picked up during the game. Furthermore, commentators are constantly throwing stats at you throughout the game. Everybody knows which players are scoring, which ones are close to a triple double, etc.

    Now, if you're talking strictly "out of context," then I would say there's a point. But it's usually fairly easy to tell when people are purposefully misusing a statistic or are unaware that they are misusing it. People don't normally do the former unless they're being faced with strong statistical evidence against their position.
    I think the right way is to take an objective look at the data (whether stats or eyeball or whatever), spot a trend, and then look for other data to back it up. So if what you're saying is that you start with something you observe and then look for stats to back it up, then I agree.

    Especially with the long-winded forum arguments though, it feels like people start with a position they believe, and then hunt for stats to back it up. That's where misuse of stats is coming from IMO. It's a fine line maybe, but I think people should keep in mind that things they observe can be wrong, and it's not the stats' fault if they don't reflect what you think they should.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      I think some people are prodigies who instinctively are skilled at certain things. Like say Larry Bird both as a player and a GM. Other people probably benefit from study and analysis though.

      However, as other players-turned-GMs show, being instinctively good at one thing doesn't mean being good at all things! So I don't really buy guy who gets girl = better player.
      In the analogy, the guy who potentially gets the girl is the coach or GM. Larry Bird is the perfect example of the non-booking reading guy winning the "game."
      "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 wintermute View Post
        Especially with the long-winded forum arguments though, it feels like people start with a position they believe, and then hunt for stats to back it up. That's where misuse of stats is coming from IMO. It's a fine line maybe, but I think people should keep in mind that things they observe can be wrong, and it's not the stats' fault if they don't reflect what you think they should.
        But if you believe Troy Murphy is not helpful for winning basketball games, and someone brings you lots of positive stats on him to prove otherwise . . . then it's the opposite problem of the stat brandisher misinterpreting the stats. So it goes both ways. But I think you've already acknowledged that in other posts.
        "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 wintermute View Post
          and it's not the stats' fault if they don't reflect what you think they should.
          One other note: stats don't talk. They don't speak. They don't even emerge from the world of blackness and abstraction until someone brings them out. There's always a person pushing them, and that person may or may not be misinterpreting and may or may not have an agenda.
          "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
            But if you believe Troy Murphy is not helpful for winning basketball games, and someone brings you lots of positive stats on him to prove otherwise . . . then it's the opposite problem of the stat brandisher misinterpreting the stats. So it goes both ways. But I think you've already acknowledged that in other posts.
            The Murphy thing is indicative of the disconnect between the advance metrics people and the "intuition" people. There are two things that advance metrics currently have a hard time with: defense and chemistry. Some of that has improved over the last 5 years with the inclusion of stats like points allowed while a certain player is on or off the floor, as well as 5-man unit stats to analyze which players play well together. However, advance metrics still has a long way to go in this regard.

            In the interim, an offensive player who steals defensive rebounds from his own teammates like Murphy, who plays no defense, is going to look better on some of these metrics than his actual on-court impact. I'm sure if we dug up Murphy's on/off stats from his days here, we'd see that he's a defensive seive, and that the team doesn't score as well as you would assume on offense, because lots of Murphy's rebounds were of the defensive variety.

            On the flip side, a guy like Omer Asik, and to a lesser extent, Roy Hibbert, is similarly difficult to quantify via advance metrics, because there is no stat for "good *** defense" or "number of guys who pulled up for a bad floater instead of attacking the rim". Again, we currently try to quantify those things with the on/off stats, but it's kinda like the way we say a planet in a solar system exists. We can't see the planet, but we can see a lot of data that suggests there's something large circling around the star that we can see.

            As the advance metrics go forward, especially with the SportsVue stuff, the stats are going to be able to do a much better job of quantifying this, because we will be able to see visual shot charts of all players when Roy Hibbert is on the floor vs. when he is off the floor, and the same for a guy like Troy Murphy. They're also tracking how much players move, and when, so you could presumably identify a player who breaks the offense and stops the flow because his teammates are moving less when he is on the floor.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
              The Murphy thing is indicative of the disconnect between the advance metrics people and the "intuition" people. There are two things that advance metrics currently have a hard time with: defense and chemistry. Some of that has improved over the last 5 years with the inclusion of stats like points allowed while a certain player is on or off the floor, as well as 5-man unit stats to analyze which players play well together. However, advance metrics still has a long way to go in this regard.

              In the interim, an offensive player who steals defensive rebounds from his own teammates like Murphy, who plays no defense, is going to look better on some of these metrics than his actual on-court impact. I'm sure if we dug up Murphy's on/off stats from his days here, we'd see that he's a defensive seive, and that the team doesn't score as well as you would assume on offense, because lots of Murphy's rebounds were of the defensive variety.

              On the flip side, a guy like Omer Asik, and to a lesser extent, Roy Hibbert, is similarly difficult to quantify via advance metrics, because there is no stat for "good *** defense" or "number of guys who pulled up for a bad floater instead of attacking the rim". Again, we currently try to quantify those things with the on/off stats, but it's kinda like the way we say a planet in a solar system exists. We can't see the planet, but we can see a lot of data that suggests there's something large circling around the star that we can see.

              As the advance metrics go forward, especially with the SportsVue stuff, the stats are going to be able to do a much better job of quantifying this, because we will be able to see visual shot charts of all players when Roy Hibbert is on the floor vs. when he is off the floor, and the same for a guy like Troy Murphy. They're also tracking how much players move, and when, so you could presumably identify a player who breaks the offense and stops the flow because his teammates are moving less when he is on the floor.
              Good post.

              I agree that the stats can continue to improve and be more helpful. But my point is that there is always the human element that ultimately controls things. For example, we can make a soldier's gun better and better to shoot the enemy. But what if he uses it to shoot his comrade or his wife?
              "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%?

                The purpose of this thread was not to have a debate.

                Like a teacher who attempts to teach you a math equation so you better understand it, I was giving you examples so you could understand how it works. This is not a debate.

                I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you don't see the usefulness in this stat, you don't understand the game as well as everyone who does. Those who don't, are the weaker posters on this board who, simply put, aren't taken as seriously as everyone else.

                TS% explains why Reggie Miller, the most popular Pacers player of all time, was so incredibly successful even tho he shot only 46% from the field. He was unbelievably efficient at scoring the ball. He had no one else in the league during his career that could score as efficiently as he could. He was the best. But you don't know that unless you study the numbers which reveal this.

                You can argue until your blue in the face that stats don't matter, but the real reason anyone wants to argue that, is because it removes an ability a particular boarder has to make his own interpretations on what is happening. Stats tells us WHAT IS happening not what you WANT to happen.

                The point of this thread was to educate the many boarders who bring nothing to the board except unsubstantiated opinions in nearly every post they make. As we all know, while you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. So when you bring weak opinions, with no basis in fact, no educated person can ever take it seriously.

                So while this solves little, the ignorant posters will continue to assume their knowledge is profound, the educated posters simply know that your opinion is of little value.

                Now them's the facts- It is unfortunate that cognitive dissonance will always keep a certain percentage of the board among the ignorant.

                Comment


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

                  Before you get mad at me and label me an *******, just remember you are the one who's trying to argue basic math is useless.
                  Last edited by mattie; 11-06-2013, 09:41 AM.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    Before you get mad at me and label me an *******,
                    Too late.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Too late.
                      No worries, that was simply for your own benefit.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Let me connect the dots for you. The point is, great stats, even if they are fairly broad don't mean the player is any good.
                        Why even bother 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%?

                          Originally posted by mattie View Post
                          This is not a debate.
                          Originally posted by mattie View Post

                          I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you don't see the usefulness in this stat, you don't understand the game as well as everyone who does. Those who don't, are the weaker posters on this board who, simply put, aren't taken as seriously as everyone else.

                          TS% explains why Reggie Miller, the most popular Pacers player of all time, was so incredibly successful even tho he shot only 46% from the field. He was unbelievably efficient at scoring the ball. He had no one else in the league during his career that could score as efficiently as he could. He was the best. But you don't know that unless you study the numbers which reveal this.

                          You can argue until your blue in the face that stats don't matter, but the real reason anyone wants to argue that, is because it removes an ability a particular boarder has to make his own interpretations on what is happening. Stats tells us WHAT IS happening not what you WANT to happen.

                          The point of this thread was to educate the many boarders who bring nothing to the board except unsubstantiated opinions in nearly every post they make. As we all know, while you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. So when you bring weak opinions, with no basis in fact, no educated person can ever take it seriously.

                          So while this solves little, the ignorant posters will continue to assume their knowledge is profound, the educated posters simply know that your opinion is of little value.

                          Now them's the facts- It is unfortunate that cognitive dissonance will always keep a certain percentage of the board among the ignorant.
                          This is definitely not a debate. It's a condescending tyranny.

                          "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
                            One other note: stats don't talk. They don't speak. They don't even emerge from the world of blackness and abstraction until someone brings them out. There's always a person pushing them, and that person may or may not be misinterpreting and may or may not have an agenda.
                            I've got to ask, if stats don't speak and the problem is the people pushing them, then why are you spending so much effort trying to dismiss the stat and not the people misusing the stat?
                            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
                              I've got to ask, if stats don't speak and the problem is the people pushing them, then why are you spending so much effort trying to dismiss the stat and not the people misusing the stat?
                              See the post right above yours.
                              "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
                                See the post right above yours.
                                Not sure how that answers my question, unless you think trying to invalidate the stat is a good response to condescending tyranny. Although when a poster comes in and tries to argue that Troy Murphy isn't as good as people are saying, when it was never said, I think a little condescention is probably warranted.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X