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

  • #61
    Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    I'm finding this to be useful:

    http://www.burntorangenation.com/201...ion-estimation

    True Shooting Percentage

    By convention, the shooting efficiency lever I described above is expressed as "true shooting percentage." To be honest, I really dislike this term. I will explain why below. First, let's present the formula for true shooting percentage (TS%) that is NCAA appropriate

    TS% = 0.5 x points/(FGA + 0.475 x FTA)

    Essentially, true shooting percentage is the points scored per shooting opportunity divided by two. The number is divided for two so that it looks like a shooting percentage. Typically many teams and players will have TS% between about 0.5 and 0.6, so the scale is similar to what it common for more traditional field goal percentages. The problem with true shooting percentage is semantic -- it isn't actually a percentage. For example, TS% can be greater than 1. It can be as high as 1.5. The 0.5 prefactor seems kind of pointless, other than the effort to make this look like a field goal percentage.
    For my tastes, I would prefer not to call it a percentage, since it isn't a percentage. And adjusting them to seem MORE like FG% is counter-productive, I think. I'd forgotten about this.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Why doesn't Brad Stevens just watch the games???
      No clue.

      Vogel tracks even smaller things, that the eye should be able to see that isn't a normal statistic, like deflections. They track number of deflections and then put it in a per minute basis. He then posts it in their video room on a pretty big white board, which the entire team can see from their seats.

      This summer we got to tour the facilities, and it was still up there from the playoffs. Why would he need stats to tell him which players are good at deflections, shouldn't he just know which ones seem to keep getting them and just use his eyes?
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

        Okay, maybe I was just over-thinking it. TS (I'm going to stop including % because that now annoys me and confuses the issue of what the stat really is) is ultimately points per shot while also including FTAs. The artificial .44 or .475 in some cases that gets thrown in doesn't sit well with me, now that I recall its inclusion, too.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Seriously? So which stats do you think are valid for coaches to use when evaluating their own team, and what coaches do you think are successful by "just watching the game" and not using stats?
          I mean, I understand you are saying you can't just use stats in a vacuum. That makes sense, there is no complete set of stats that defines every aspect of the game and complexity makes it unlikely there ever will be. But, by the same token, "just watch the game" in a vacuum is flawed because the human animal has biases toward certain things - a tendency to see patterns where none exist, more attraction to moving rather than static situations, exponential emphasis on linear patterns, etc.

          Bottom line is that statistics are a way for multiple people to watch different aspects of the game and describe what they saw in a well-defined way. Putting together statistics to form a picture is no different than putting together observations to form a picture - it's just that studies show over and over again that observations without a specific criterion for "yes" or "no" become flawed very quickly.
          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


          • #65
            Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

            No stat replaces what you can see with your own eyes but it can come in handy to help explain what you've seen over the course of 5, 10, 82 games.

            Sight and the human mind are wonderful tools but it's easy to forget what we've seen especially when we've seen so many plays over a period of time. Also, we have favorite players and biases. We might overlook mistakes or poor shooting of one player while when another misses a shot, it drives us to the brink of insanity. That's where the stats come in handy to see if what we think about a player's shooting ability aligns with the facts.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              It was so blatant that Howard often complained to the media about not getting enough touches and ultimately led him to basically quit playing to win for SVG at the end of SVG's Orlando gig, with the most glaring example of it probably being the final game of the playoffs that preceded his dismissal.
              Dwight Howard will always complain about not getting enough touches. Coaches are not going to give him the post touches that he thinks that he deserves because he simply isn't that efficient as a post player.

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              Regarding TS% being a justification for more 3 pointers
              Here's a disconnect. TS% is not a justification for more 3 pointers. TS% is just a measurement of how efficient scorer a player is. That's all there is to it. You don't have to apply your own context in a stat that can be taken in face value.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                I'm finding this to be useful:

                http://www.burntorangenation.com/201...ion-estimation



                For my tastes, I would prefer not to call it a percentage, since it isn't a percentage. And adjusting them to seem MORE like FG% is counter-productive, I think. I'd forgotten about this.
                That's an interesting point. It's true that TS can exceed 100%. eFG% can exceed 100% as well. Lance's Catch and Shoot eFG% is 103.8% at the moment -> http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingC...rowsPerPage=25
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  I'm finding this to be useful:

                  http://www.burntorangenation.com/201...ion-estimation



                  For my tastes, I would prefer not to call it a percentage, since it isn't a percentage. And adjusting them to seem MORE like FG% is counter-productive, I think. I'd forgotten about this.
                  It IS a percentage. It's a weighted percentage.

                  That 0.5 is NOT a useless number intended to make it look like a percent. It's actually there to give 3 pointers more credit for each one made and free throws less credit. It's what accounts for the 3 pointers being worth 1.5 times the amount as 2 pointers. The free throw weight is further adjusted in the denominator for and-1's.

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

                  It's weighted according to their point values: 2 pointers are considered to be worth one 2 pointer made, 3 pointers are considered to be worth 1.5 two pointers, and free throws are worth half of a two pointer.
                  Last edited by aamcguy; 11-05-2013, 05:20 PM.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Okay, I guess this is the part of TS% I struggle with understanding, then, because to me to account for 3's you should be including the extra 0.5 for each 3P.
                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I'm finding this to be useful:

                    http://www.burntorangenation.com/201...ion-estimation



                    For my tastes, I would prefer not to call it a percentage, since it isn't a percentage. And adjusting them to seem MORE like FG% is counter-productive, I think. I'd forgotten about this.
                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Okay, maybe I was just over-thinking it. TS (I'm going to stop including % because that now annoys me and confuses the issue of what the stat really is) is ultimately points per shot while also including FTAs. The artificial .44 or .475 in some cases that gets thrown in doesn't sit well with me, now that I recall its inclusion, too.
                    I think you are overthinking this. The difference between a shooting % and a points per shot rating is just a matter of conversion. Not taking into consideration 3pointers and FTs, 1.000 pps is equal to 50% FG%. They are the exact same statistic represented differently. 3-pointers and FTs can screw up with this perfect easy conversion though. Where eFG% only tries to adjust for 3-pointers, TS% also tries to adjust for FTA.

                    Like all individual statistics they aren't there to define the best strategy, they are there to compare players who have similar roles. Comparing a PG to a C isn't a fair comparison for either player, and improper use of statistics. Comparing a sharp shooter to the number one option is not a fair comparison.

                    How many 3's you take is meaningless. What isn't meaningless is how many 3's you make. If you are making them, then shooting 3s is a good strategy. If you are missing them shooting 3s is a bad strategy. The mark of a good team isn't how many 3's they take, it is about their ability to adjust how they play when their threes are not going in. Live by the 3 or die by the three is a terrible strategy. What isn't a terrible strategy is live by the 3 or adjust.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                      Okay, then that's like the third different equation I've seen for TS. So which is it?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Okay, then that's like the third different equation I've seen for TS. So which is it?
                        They're all the same equation, with numbers moved around. The equations you've posted give you a number like .6341. The ones that are multiplied by 100 are just changing the decimal it to 63.41%, and you will notice they have a 2* in the denominator. The ones that are multiplied by 50 are just reducing 100/2 = 50.

                        I didn't change anything, I just provided an alternate way of looking at the equation. They are absolutely equivalent. The whole equations is really just:

                        (Weighted FGM) / (Weighted FGA), no matter what variables are used to get it.
                        Last edited by aamcguy; 11-05-2013, 05:42 PM.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                          Not a lot of math majors on PD! Lol

                          The anti stat crew reminds me of the old baseball scout in Moneyball. "Yeah but his girlfriend is a dog, means he has no confidence." You guys must have hated that movie. Math!!! Run Away!!!!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I guess I'm confused
                            Hey, it's a simple stat taken at face value:

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

                            I have no idea why BBall would undervalue it.



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

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                              Not a lot of math majors on PD! Lol

                              The anti stat crew reminds me of the old baseball scout in Moneyball. "Yeah but his girlfriend is a dog, means he has no confidence." You guys must have hated that movie. Math!!! Run Away!!!!!!!!!
                              You tell me which guy gets the girl (wins games). The one who reads 20 books on dating and analyzes every possibility . . . or the guy who looks over the situation and uses his gut instincts?
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                                Jmo, but stats are used out of context all the time here. Most people use stats to 'prove' a point they already intuit true. In other words, they take a position and then use stats to back up their point. That seems backwards to me. Stats seem best used when the stat is used to identify guys that might make the team better because of their play. In this example, if a team had a guy with a good TS%, they should look at giving him more minutes. Or one of the ways the Pacers use stats to take away shots on defense that would generate a good TS%. Protect the front of the rim, protect the paint, protect the 3 pt line and don't foul.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I'm just wondering when was the stat ever used out of context, or which one has been used out of whack with reality.

                                I agree it can be done, but it just reads like an pre-criticism of something that might or might not happen.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X