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 Bball View Post
    I think the term chucker is someone is shoots the ball a lot. Not necessarily, and likely not in the framework of the offense, nor situationally to the game itself. Whether they hit or not is not a factor to the term. Although a chucker that hits will probably be embraced by more people than a chucker who misses everything.

    At least that is how I use it...
    I'll start by saying that this not how most people use the term "chucker". They use it for people who shoot a lot and they are inefficient as well. Kevin Durant shoots a lot but he will never be called a "chucker" because he is very efficient. Monta Ellis shoots less than Durant but he is called a "chucker" because his efficiency is below par.

    Regarding Granger now. Even if you want to use the term "chucker" that way then it still does not apply to Granger all that well. The 08-09 and 09-10 seasons where the only seasons in which he shot the ball a lot. His career high in USG was 29.6% in the 08-09 season as well. Do you know where does this number puts him in the All-Time NBA USG% list? He puts him only at #190 -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_season.html

    That's lower than players like Corliss Williamson, Kelly Tripucka, Gilbert Arenas and Stephon Marbury. It's also lower than our very own Jermaine O'Neal. Danny just didn't shot as much as people seem to think.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by mattie View Post
      This will not be the the third time I have to point out what you're saying is absolute ********.

      At no point did anyone EVER argue because of TS% Danny should start. In fact, the one person who brought it up, was ME. I made the argument Lance should KEEP the starting job. I did however argue people should stop making up ******** about Danny, to further their stupid ****ing arguments.
      mattie,
      If you could have toned it down a bit this thread might not have devolved like it has.

      I'm sorry I disagree with you. I hope you accept my apology.
      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
        It's just that TS wasn't accepted as the holy grail in winning the argument that Danny should start over Lance.
        TS% was never the holy grail in winning that argument. I have spent several hours of my life explaining my position on this "Danny vs Lance" debate in the last few days but I have never, ever implicated TS% in it.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          TS% was never the holy grail in winning that argument. I have spent several hours of my life explaining my position on this "Danny vs Lance" debate in the last few days but I have never, ever implicated TS% in it.
          And you've also never made a divisive reply in this thread.

          What is wrong you?
          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 know Since balances what he sees on the court with the numbers and doesn't just blindly go to the numbers. He might use the two things and sometimes come to a different conclusion than me, but he's looking at the same things (whether ascribing the same weights or not). We could argue the conclusion of course, but that is not what this thread is about.

            So a big part of what he's arguing with me about "stats versus game observations" we're just not disagreeing about. Even if he doesn't see that.
            And I'm not saying he agrees with me, I'm saying I agree with him.
            So, you agree with me and Mattie as well since we're saying the same thing with Since86.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I guess I do because I agree with those that say Danny's game devolved into him being a chucker. He might be efficient at it according to TS, but he took a lot of bad, rushed shots according the the games I watched the season prior to last. But this thread isn't supposed to be about Danny.

              I don't know if we've even looked at the TS stats for the last full season Danny played and compared them to previous seasons. I've lost track. But all it would tell me is if Danny would be more selective with his shooting he'd have an even better TS.
              His TS% follows roughly the same career arc as his FG%. The only difference is that it gives him credit for being a proficient free throw and three point shooter.
              Last edited by aamcguy; 11-06-2013, 03:24 PM.
              Time for a new sig.

              Comment


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

                The notion that TS% measures "efficiency" is not a statement of fact. It is the subjective creation of a stat guy or group of guys who decided to label their long formula with the title "Efficiency."

                Maybe it is an appropriate label, maybe not. I can think of about 15 factors it doesn't or cannot measure, so there may be out there, or should be, or someone will someday create, the

                "Truly, Truly Efficient Percentage" stat.
                "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 aamcguy View Post
                  His TS% follows roughly the same career arc as his FG%. The only difference is that it gives him credit for being a proficient free throw and foul shooter.
                  You mean, 3 point and foul shooter
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


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

                    I think Danny vs. Lance has a lot of moving parts, such that even if you try to simply argue which player is better in a vacuum, there's a whole other argument to be made as to how each player fits with George, and how each player fits with the bench. I think there's simply too many variables for either side to definitively say that one should start. Trust the coach to know his business, as he is the only one who will see a large enough sample to make the decision.

                    As for a "chucker", I always viewed it as someone who shoots at lot at a relatively low percentage. And, just because you are a chucker, doesn't necessarily mean you are an overall bad player, but it is certainly a hole in your game. Josh Smith and Monta Ellis are current chuckers, and I think Antoine Walker and Allen Iverson are prime examples of historic chuckers. I don't think Granger should be mentioned in the same breath with those players. I think that the JOB years have tainted the image of Danny, because he was being asked to take shots early in the shot clock if he was given an open shot from an area where he felt comfortable taking the shot. As we found, there are problems with that philosophy, although maybe that approach works if you have a more talented team, particularly on the defensive end.

                    Now, since I have never been comfortable as the peacemaker, let me say that I always hated Derrick McKey as a player. His refusal to take a wide open jumper ground the offense to a halt, and half the time he was injured. To me, the trade for Jonathan Bender was a better trade, because at least Bender had sky-high potential. There, I said it.

                    Comment


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

                      Bball, do you think PG has been chucking the ball this year? PG is shooting the ball 17.5 times per game. The most Danny ever shot in his career, he averaged 19.1 shots per game. Or are we really going to try and say there's a big difference between 1.6 shots per game, drawn out over 30mins of game time?
                      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 Eindar View Post
                        I think Danny vs. Lance has a lot of moving parts, such that even if you try to simply argue which player is better in a vacuum, there's a whole other argument to be made as to how each player fits with George, and how each player fits with the bench. I think there's simply too many variables for either side to definitively say that one should start. Trust the coach to know his business, as he is the only one who will see a large enough sample to make the decision.

                        As for a "chucker", I always viewed it as someone who shoots at lot at a relatively low percentage. And, just because you are a chucker, doesn't necessarily mean you are an overall bad player, but it is certainly a hole in your game. Josh Smith and Monta Ellis are current chuckers, and I think Antoine Walker and Allen Iverson are prime examples of historic chuckers. I don't think Granger should be mentioned in the same breath with those players. I think that the JOB years have tainted the image of Danny, because he was being asked to take shots early in the shot clock if he was given an open shot from an area where he felt comfortable taking the shot. As we found, there are problems with that philosophy, although maybe that approach works if you have a more talented team, particularly on the defensive end.

                        Now, since I have never been comfortable as the peacemaker, let me say that I always hated Derrick McKey as a player. His refusal to take a wide open jumper ground the offense to a halt, and half the time he was injured. To me, the trade for Jonathan Bender was a better trade, because at least Bender had sky-high potential. There, I said it.
                        And you were carving out such an "above the fray", seasoned, reasonable and diplomatic position in this thread.



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

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Bball, do you think PG has been chucking the ball this year? PG is shooting the ball 17.5 times per game. The most Danny ever shot in his career, he averaged 19.1 shots per game. Or are we really going to try and say there's a big difference between 1.6 shots per game, drawn out over 30mins of game time?
                          Are those FGA being weighted for minutes played? I feel like Paul is playing more minutes than Danny would have during that 19.1 season. Of course, i also think that Paul has a LOT more options in terms of passing, so maybe that's a bad comparison, too.
                          Last edited by Eindar; 11-06-2013, 03:38 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                            Are those FGA attempts being weighted for minutes played? I feel like Paul is playing more minutes than Danny would have during that 19.1 season. Of course, i also think that Paul has a LOT more options in terms of passing, so maybe that's a bad comparison, too.
                            No, but they were playing pretty much identical numbers. PG is at 36.5 mins to get those and Danny was at 36.2mins to get his. If we go with a per 36, Granger shot 19.0 times, PG is shooting 17.3 times.
                            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 Bball View Post
                              It tells us nothing that we can't glean from focusing on one team and factoring in simple stats. You don't need algebra to know who takes good shots, who makes shots, who knows how to get to the line, and who hits their FT's. You can take the individual pieces and put it all together in your head without a calculator. And when you do it that way you can also pinpoint the areas a player needs to work on.

                              It's a little different when looking at the opposition and trying to break down their games. A team and players that you likely don't follow nearly as closely as your own team. At that point the numbers behind the numbers get more important.
                              I think the problem is that you oversimplify how to make decisions and over-rely on just watching someone play.

                              To use your math analogy, you don't need calculus to determine the area of a triangle. That's a very simple and straightforward equation.

                              When you have an irregular figure, you need something more complicated. If you can define it with an equation than calculu8s is great, if not you might have to use an iterative approximation method of some kind, but either way it is a LOT more complicated than just running a simple equation.

                              By the same token, if a player played exactly the same way no matter who he was on the floor with, no matter who he was playing against, and no matter when or where he was playing, then it would be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer what his strengths and weaknesses are and what to recommend to fix them or when to use or not use him.

                              But no player is that consistent, not even a Jordan or James. The more variables you add (type of play/how it is defended/where the player ends up/who passes or receives the pass), the less likely you are to be able to determine what is happening so it can be fixed. Sure, you can say "thus and so is bad at PnR" or "whoever is not able to pass effectively", but you don't have the luxury of never running a PnR with thus and so or making sure whoever never has to pass out of the post or a double-team. You have to figure out how to fix those, or how to use other players strengths to counter them, or design plays to mask them. The more information you have, the more likely you are to be able to do that - and the more advanced stats you have, the more likely you are to be able to determine exactly what it is (watching the wrong part of your intended receiver's body? Unable to see past players of a certain height/width?) that causes the problem.

                              And, no, you DON'T need to use these stats to enjoy watching the game. What you enjoy is entirely up to you, and if observation alone is what you like to use to make statements, fine. A coach isn't paid to watch the game at that high a level, though. And, if you were to state "thus-and-so sucks at the pick and roll" while someone else comments "that's funny, his assist numbers show that he gets more assists off the PnR than anyone else in the East", then the answer is not just to say "well, that stat is no good because it doesn't match my eyes", it is to provide specifics of what you actually saw that causes you to have the opinion "suck" when the assist numbers would imply "pretty good". The problem is that, while numbers are pretty easy to trot out to support a claim, it is harder (and seldom done) for someone using only what they see to describe in enough detail WHAT they see so as to make the argument more than simply "that's not what I see, and I know better, so nyaaaaah" (I know, not what is being said, but I gotta inject SOMETHING light into this...)

                              Does any of this make sense?
                              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 Since86
                                For reference too, PG TS% this year is 53.1%. Granger's during that 08-09 when he put up that many shots? 58.4%.
                                Actually his TS% this season through 4 games is off the charts at .667.

                                Last season, when he put up nearly identical numbers to Granger of two years ago, is when he had a TS% of .531.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X