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

Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    I agree with Stan. Granted there is a gray area here where you can use analytics as a tool. But overall I am not a believer in it. But more and more coaches use it and more and more front office types use it.

    Stan's best argument against is the data is collected in a manner and by people who do it incorrectly. Therefore garbage in garbage out

    http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/01/stan-van-gundy-questions-integrity-of-advanced-statistical-data-at-sloan-sports-analytics-conference/


    BOSTON – Stan Van Gundy appeared as part of the basketball analytics panel at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference on Friday, and while he isn’t opposed to coaches integrating advanced statistical data into their day-to-day operations, he was concerned about the particulars of how the data is acquired, and who, exactly, is responsible for sorting it all out.

    Van Gundy posed legitimate questions that would theoretically need to be addressed before the basketball purists at the NBA level take the data as gospel, and making sure that whoever is identifying certain play types and quantifying them knows basketball, and is doing that job to the specifications of a particular head coach.

    “I don’t trust most of it,” Van Gundy said, beginning an exquisite rant on the topic. “I read some of the stuff that people write on ESPN.com, you know, I’ll read stats on pick and roll defense and stuff that came off Synergy or somewhere else — I don’t know who the hell is recording that information!”

    “I read a thing in the playoffs last year that said that New York isolated like 17 percent of the time,” he continued. “I’m watching their games, they isolate half of the time, at least. So I don’t know who’s recording that. If there’s a pick and roll, and they throw it back to Carmelo and he holds the ball and isolates for eight seconds, that’s a pick and roll play, not an isolation? And a lot of pick and roll stuff … you know, I read a thing today from ESPN the Magazine on Paul George being the best pick and roll defender in the league on the ball handler. Look, a lot of pick and rolls … there’s pick and rolls designed to score, and there’s pick and rolls you run to get into something else. If you’re recording it and you’re treating those two things the same, then you don’t know what you’re doing.”

    Van Gundy really does like the additional available data — he just needs to be able to trust that whoever is compiling it has the same standards basketball-wise that he does. Ironically enough, I overheard a statistician type at one of the panel discussions explaining to a colleague that of course he watches games — but only to enhance his data set.

    “I mean, I do watch the games,” this person said, “to to try to pick up on some things that maybe my numbers aren’t catching.”

    This is obviously completely backwards, and as far as Van Gundy is concerned, there’s simply no substitution for the eye test.

    “To me, I think that a lot of the analytic stuff can be very useful, but if you’re using that in place of sitting down and watching film yourself and seeing what’s going on, you’re making a big mistake,” Van Gundy said. “And I don’t want to offend anybody, but I think one of the problems with analytics — I think it’s good; I used it, I love looking at it — but one of the problems is, there are a lot of people in a lot of organizations who don’t know the game, who all they know is analytics and as a result, that’s what they rely on. And they will use that to supersede what guys like us see with our eyes. And I think that’s a major mistake. There’s no substitute for watching film over and over and over again, and the only numbers I trust are the ones that my people believe.”

    Van Gundy isn’t alone in his hesitance, and it will take some time before everyone trusts the way that the bulk of the data is quantified and labeled for mass consumption.

  • #2
    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Data can help you build a great team over the course of a regular season, a la 2002's Oakland A's, but when it comes down to it, to win in the playoffs, you have to put points on the board, get rebounds, and play defense. Data won't fill the stats sheet, players do. I'm with SVG on this one. It's an interesting tool, but it cannot be relied on to build a true contender.
    Senior at the University of Louisville.
    Greenfield ---> The Ville

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

      You do you dismiss analyticals when you admit you used them and think they're good? He's dismissing those who only rely on stats, not the stats in general.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

        I think he makes an interesting point. Like the part about how some pick and rolls aren't designed to score, but to set up something else, yet the players involved in the pick and roll (on both teams) are going to have their PnR stats altered due to that play, when the point was never to score or stop the score on that play.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I think he makes an interesting point. Like the part about how some pick and rolls aren't designed to score, but to set up something else, yet the players involved in the pick and roll (on both teams) are going to have their PnR stats altered due to that play, when the point was never to score or stop the score on that play.
          Not entirely true, the PnR play might have been designed to get you something else, but if defenders completely fall asleep on it, then it quickly becomes a scoring situation. No player would pass up an easy bucket because the play was designed to get the ball somewhere else. So I think its accurate to treat every PnR the same.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

            Originally posted by Steagles View Post
            Data can help you build a great team over the course of a regular season, a la 2002's Oakland A's, but when it comes down to it, to win in the playoffs, you have to put points on the board, get rebounds, and play defense. Data won't fill the stats sheet, players do. I'm with SVG on this one. It's an interesting tool, but it cannot be relied on to build a true contender.
            Most offenses are designed to get good looks close to the basket, yet our defense invites them in while giving them bad angles at the hoop. We have a player waiting down there who makes the most efficient shot in the game either a waste of clock time or a low percentage shot. We run guys off the 3 point line because having guys shoot a shot they make 10% less of the time yet is worth 50% more is inefficient. We try to contest all shots, but if we have to leave a guy open it's a midrange shot or a 3 at the wings.

            Granted, these are simple enough assertions that you don't need advanced stats to make them; a simple glance at a floor percentage chart would do that. But when you get down to game planning for good scorers, advanced stats are a great way to fill in incomplete knowledge or alert you of new information. You can only spend so many hours watching film to pick up this information, and the chances are you want to spend more time on the teams you're likely to face in the conference semifinals and finals. You of course have to have the right players to execute your gameplan.

            I don't think it's a coincidence that the teams leading the league in win percentage are three teams with coaches who are known for valuing analytics.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Not entirely true, the PnR play might have been designed to get you something else, but if defenders completely fall asleep on it, then it quickly becomes a scoring situation. No player would pass up an easy bucket because the play was designed to get the ball somewhere else. So I think its accurate to treat every PnR the same.

              Your point is OK until your last sentence. I believe it is a big mistake to treat all pick and rolls the same. Going by your logic every play should be treated the same because every play no matter what it may be could turn into a score if the defenders fall asleep.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                I don't think it's a coincidence that the teams leading the league in win percentage are three teams with coaches who are known for valuing analytics.
                Frank? OK. But I didn't know Spoelstra and Brooks were known for valuing it. I really doubt Popovich is a big believer in it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                  1) van Gundy said he likes the stats and uses them, so he did not dismiss the stats themselves. He is dismissing people who ONLY use them. No head coach in the league only uses them. Maybe there are some front office guys who are, and they are making a gigantic mistake if so.

                  2) Stan seems to not use Synergy very much. When you search for play type, they are initially organized by the action that lead to the shot. P'n'r up top, kick out to man on the wing, dump into the post for a hook shot. That is classified as a Post Up. HOWEVER, you can also assess overall versions of the same stats. You can look up PPP on possessions that included a p'n'r at some point, even if it didn't lead to a shot.

                  Separating the stat out like that is good information. Stan actually unwittingly makes the case for this separation without knowing it. He is simply ignorant of the fact that the distinction exists.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Frank? OK. But I didn't know Spoelstra and Brooks were known for valuing it. I really doubt Popovich is a big believer in it.
                    Here's where my main bit came from for Frank and Spoelstra: http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/vogel...wing-trend-nba I think there was more stuff that came out during our playoff series that talked about why the Heat's offense puts people in the places it does, specifically Bosh.

                    Brooks I can't find one I've read before, but I remember reading about how he gears his defense towards limiting field goal percentage. They obviously have a much different defense than we do, but it is effective at their pace of play.

                    Also, I want to clarify that I think the reason they are leading by percentage points over the other teams is because of an emphasis on it. Without the advantage I believe to be there, I still think they would be right around the top anyway. I think where it helps the most is in the playoffs, which is why we were able to overachieve our first two forays in with Vogel.
                    Last edited by aamcguy; 03-03-2014, 03:43 PM.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                      Originally posted by Steagles View Post
                      It's an interesting tool, but it cannot be relied on to build a true contender.
                      Depends on your definitions, I guess. Mark Cuban is one of the acknowledged pioneers of the advanced stat crowd, and his Mavs have already won a championship.

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Frank? OK. But I didn't know Spoelstra and Brooks were known for valuing it. I really doubt Popovich is a big believer in it.
                      Spoelstra and Brooks, yes. I've not seen Pop talk much about stats, but the Spurs in general are heavy into analytics, and I don't think it was an accident that the Spurs were exploiting the corner 3 (the shot identified by analytics as the most efficient outside of the paint) way before anyone else. I mean, it's possible that Pop's intuition was so good that he figured out the corner 3 without use of advanced stats, but that seems unlikely.

                      To SVG's larger point. Sure, data collection can and should be improved, and that's why people are excited by the Synergy data and the upcoming SportsVU stuff. But even as things stand right now, in other industries people regularly get useful information out of unreliable data, I mean that's why engineers/scientists are trained in basic statistical tools. Analytics are helpful now to people who know how to use them, and will only improve as the data gets better.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I think he makes an interesting point. Like the part about how some pick and rolls aren't designed to score, but to set up something else, yet the players involved in the pick and roll (on both teams) are going to have their PnR stats altered due to that play, when the point was never to score or stop the score on that play.
                        How?

                        Synergy is going to classify it as a scoring play so if there is a pass like a pnp then it will be recorded as a pnr or a spot up.

                        This is where I see them screw things up once in a while but if there is no score off the pnr and if the is a second pass then the pnr defense won't get the credit or the blame.

                        IF there isnt' a pass then it records it as a pnr ball handler. The duration of time between player movements is fair point but I have never seen 8 seconds between a pnr on synergy be recorded as a pnr play. I see it as a isolation nearly every time.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 03-03-2014, 05:10 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                          I'm not a big believer in stats. I feel they only tell a small part of the story. Some of arguments I get into here at PD, are usually stats contradicting what my own two eyes are seeing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            I've not seen Pop talk much about stats, but the Spurs in general are heavy into analytics, and I don't think it was an accident that the Spurs were exploiting the corner 3 (the shot identified by analytics as the most efficient outside of the paint) way before anyone else. I mean, it's possible that Pop's intuition was so good that he figured out the corner 3 without use of advanced stats, but that seems unlikely.
                            Maybe it is just because I am relatively young, but I think it is pretty obvious the corner three is highly efficient. It is a 3 point shot from 2 point range. I have always thought that the court needs to be widened in order to eliminate the corner three from being so close.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                              Originally posted by pogi View Post
                              I'm not a big believer in stats. I feel they only tell a small part of the story. Some of arguments I get into here at PD, are usually stats contradicting what my own two eyes are seeing.
                              The problem I have with most people who come with that perspective is that they can very seldom explain why the stat is false using examples. They can usually only dismiss the stat because they don't believe it.

                              Human beings are pattern-seeking, meaning the smallest visual repetition can seem to be the proof of a pattern. The value in statistics is they keep that eye test honest. If you think player A spends all his time shooting, but the statistics show that he only takes 2 shots for every 30 minutes he is on the floor, then it tells you that there's something about how you are interpreting what you are seeing that is wrong. Now, it could be that the guy is holding on to the ball for 15 minutes and either shooting or turning it over, but it still means the "eye" interpretation is incorrect. Of course, the statistic isn't complete in and of itself, either, but it takes a lot of different statistics to come close to a picture. People tend to think the eye test is complete without need for any other information.

                              Stats are numbers. While some are more subjective than others (like assists), most (player hit 5 of 7 shots in 22 minutes) don't lie or tell the truth. They are just facts. Assembling them is the key.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X