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

Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

    We had the 4th best record in the league...the 8th best rebounding. As a team, rebounding was probably a slight weak point. Considering our wings were actually quite good rebounders, I don't think that speaks very highly of our bigs. No, I don't think they are above average rebounders. I think our wings, who will not be playing this coming season, were well above average.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      We had the 4th best record in the league...the 8th best rebounding. As a team, rebounding was probably a slight weak point. Considering our wings were actually quite good rebounders, I don't think that speaks very highly of our bigs. No, I don't think they are above average rebounders. I think our wings, who will not be playing this coming season, were well above average.
      I mentioned this earlier, but I think our rebounding is actually inflated for two reasons:
      1.) we had a really good defensive team that help opponents to the lowest shooting percentage in the league (or maybe second lowest), which led to more defensive rebounds for the Pacers.
      2.) we turned the ball over more than our opponents, leading to more shots by our opponents than us, leading to more rebounds for us.
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        I mentioned this earlier, but I think our rebounding is actually inflated for two reasons:
        1.) we had a really good defensive team that help opponents to the lowest shooting percentage in the league (or maybe second lowest), which led to more defensive rebounds for the Pacers.
        2.) we turned the ball over more than our opponents, leading to more shots by our opponents than us, leading to more rebounds for us.
        Nice post. There are so many factors involved when trying to make these conclusions and, indeed, when the opposition gets a ton of shots against you AND your defense is good...of course rebound numbers will go up because it's normally easier for the defense to rebound the ball because of positioning. Similarly, if your wing defense is horrible your rebounding is going to be really bad because the opposition will drain every shot leaving you with very few boards. The calculus is something some recognize and know better than to use a slide rule to figure out.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Our wings were very good rebounders.
          You don't have good rebounding wings without big men doing their jobs in the post.


          when the opposition gets a ton of shots against you AND your defense is good...of course rebound numbers will go up
          Pacer opponent's ORB% was 23.2%. Only Charlotte did a better job of preventing their opponent from getting an offensive rebound.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            You don't have good rebounding wings without big men doing their jobs in the post.




            Pacer opponent's ORB% was 23.2%. Only Charlotte did a better job of preventing their opponent from getting an offensive rebound.
            I think you're missing the point. You disagree with BnG and are using a statistic to support your argument. Regardless of the validity of the statistic, because you haven't publicly stated you have a Ph.D in statistics and your statistic refutes his point, you might as well be arguing that the earth is made of bacon. Because everybody knows, if you attack somebody's credentials, you can make their point, however valid, seem worse to people that already agree with you.

            Could we perhaps have a conversation about basketball statistics without somebody attacking people's intelligence?

            While we are at it, let's go ahead and put to rest the notion that you need a doctorate to understand simple statistics. The concepts of an incredibly vast majority of statistics used in basketball are covered in the first 3 weeks of a statistics class any high school sophomore can take. People with doctorates are more qualified than others; they're not the only ones qualified to speak intelligently about any statistics. The interpretation of simple proportions can be covered by anybody who did well in any statistics class ever. Everybody will make mistakes on occasion (and people will also flat out be right or wrong), but instead of telling people they're too stupid to know what they're talking about, how about we leave that part out of it and just stick to a discussion about basketball?
            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Sure, we may rebound better with Hibbert on the floor. But the fact our other bigs (Scola and Ian) are horrific at rebounding and therefore causing this "advanced stat" does not make Hibbert any good at it either.

            Stats don't really have problems. The problem is when people make conclusions from stats and they simply don't think of everything. That's why people get doctorates in the stuff to weed out people who have no business using stats.
            Last edited by aamcguy; 08-22-2014, 11:51 AM.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              Rebounding consists of 3 things luck, blocking-out, and attacking the ball. Luck comprises of about 50% of what goes into rebounding.
              I dont disagree with the list you provided. But, instinct should have been added. Guys like Foster had it. As did the worm, and Barkley (who was only 6'4) and would dominate the glass.

              Sorry, no matter what stats you want to put on it. roy is average at best when it comes to rebounding. He simply lacks the instinct, and that overlaps into severaal other facets of Roys game.

              I would love to see more Dikembe Mutombo in roys game, who I believe averaged 10+ boards a game in his career.

              Bottom line: NO Roy is not a good rebounder.


              This thread should never have lasted past the first page. Its all but settled, Roy is below average when it comes to rebouding.

              You need evidence. View the 2014 ECF vs a frontline of Birdman, Haslem, and Bosh.


              Roy shoulda put up 10+ boards with ease that series. Gortat would got 15 a game like it was only mission in life.



              Roy punked out and quit last season. Rolled the **** right over. No accountability. Maybe big fella shoulda got selfish like Lance and started attempting to rebound the damn basketball.

              He played like a *****. Roy was a downright embarrassment on the court last season. Scarred by his play. He got paid and lost his ballsack.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                While we are at it, let's go ahead and put to rest the notion that you need a doctorate to understand simple statistics. The concepts of an incredibly vast majority of statistics used in basketball are covered in the first 3 weeks of a statistics class any [i]high school sophomore [\i] can take. People with doctorates are more qualified than others; they're not the only ones qualified to speak intelligently about any statistics. The interpretation of simple proportions can be covered by anybody who did well in any statistics class ever. Everybody will make mistakes on occasion (and people will also flat out be right or wrong), but instead of telling people they're too stupid to know what they're talking about, how about we leave that part out of it and just stick to a discussion about basketball?
                Yes THANK YOU! What people call "advanced stats" are usually just ratios. Even a complicated formula like PER is basically simple arithmetic. It's only when we're talking APM and the like do we even touch on more advanced concepts like statistical regression.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  We had the 4th best record in the league...the 8th best rebounding. As a team, rebounding was probably a slight weak point. Considering our wings were actually quite good rebounders, I don't think that speaks very highly of our bigs. No, I don't think they are above average rebounders. I think our wings, who will not be playing this coming season, were well above average.
                  Wait....being better than nearly 2/3rds of the league in a category is now a "slight weak point?" Okay.....

                  EDIT: Also, Pacers were actually 6th, seeing as how they were tied with Minny and OKC for 6th. It's awfully weird that you'd try to put two teams that the Pacers tied with, above the Pacers. Also, I cross referenced rebounding opportunities. Out of the 5 teams (Port, Den, Det, Hous, GS) all 5 of them had more def rebounding opportunities than the Pacers. Out of the two teams that were tied with the Pacers in total rebounding, both had more defensive rebounding opportunities.

                  In fact, the Pacers were the #1 defensive rebounding team last season, while having the average number of opportunities. So this belief that the Pacers were slightly weak in rebounding, holds absolutely zero water.

                  Here at the two stat pages I cross-referenced.

                  http://www.basketball-reference.com/...#all_opp_stats
                  http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...rt/avgRebounds
                  Last edited by Since86; 08-22-2014, 10:16 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                    Originally posted by Since86
                    Nah. The league average for opponent shot attempts was 83shots per game. Pacer opponents averaged 82.74 fga per game. So the Pacers were right smack average on number of defensive rebounding opportunities.
                    Rebounding stats compare pacers average rebounds Against our opponents. So even if the shot attempts were around average you have you have to look At shot attempts against and field goal percentage for and against
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      Rebounding stats compare pacers average rebounds Against our opponents. So even if the shot attempts were around average you have you have to look At shot attempts against and field goal percentage for and against
                      Yeah, that's why I deleted the post. After I did calculated league average vs Pacers. League average was 46 (rounding up) defensive rebounding opportunities, Pacers had 48. There's another way to look at it though. Pacers grabbed 76.8% of rebounds defensively, which was good for 2nd in the league. (Bobcats lead at 77.6%) League average was 74.5%.

                      Anyway you slice it, the Pacers were a top rebounding team, either based off of total numbers or percentages.

                      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...#all_opp_stats
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                        And you can thank Lance Stephenson not Roy Hibbert.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                          Yep, one player is the reason why the Pacers are such a good rebounding team. Makes total sense. I'd expect someone like KLove, or D.Jordan to have that type of impact. Pretty impressive for the sole reason a team is good at rebounding, only averaging 7 rebs. Maybe his sheer presence just pushed the other rebounds in his teammates hands.

                          Add rebounding to the list of things Lance is the bestest ever at.

                          Lance's 7 rebs=reason why Pacers are so good at team rebounding
                          Roy's 7rebs=reason why Pacers are a "slightly weak"rebounding team

                          And Lance fully explains why the Pacers were the 4th best rebounding team in the league in 11-12, because Lance's 10mpg over 42 games just propelled them.....
                          Lance's 4reb average in 12-13 must explain why the Pacers were the best rebounding team in the league in 12-13 too.

                          Man, that Lance, he makes other players better by simple facilitated diffusion.
                          Last edited by Since86; 08-22-2014, 01:09 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                            Yea he is. He is 7'2 and still has games with no rebounds.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                              These are the top 8 rebounding teams in the NBA in terms of Total rebounds. Not a perfect stat as there is no such thing. However, notice that every single team on this list has a big as one of their top 2 rebounders. The only player who might not be technically "a big" is Kevin Durant who is 6'11".

                              Anyone think these bigs spend their time blocking out? No...they control the paint and that's why they are the best in the league.

                              Also, it might be useful to note that two of our best rebounders are gone this coming season and the other one is getting past his prime. Hibbert certainly does have his work cut out to show he can rebound.

                              Portland
                              Aldridge (PF) - 11.5
                              Lopez (C) - 8.5


                              Denver
                              Hickson (FC) - 9.2
                              Faried (PF) - 8.6


                              Detroit
                              Drummond (FC) - 13.2
                              Monroe (FC) - 9.3


                              Golden State
                              Bogut (C) - 10
                              Lee (FC) - 9.3


                              Houston
                              Howard (C) - 12.2
                              Asik (C) - 7.9


                              Oklahoma City
                              Ibaka (FC) - 8.8
                              Durant (PF) - 7.4


                              Indiana Pacers
                              Stephenson (SG) - 7.2
                              Paul George (SF) - 6.8
                              David West (PF) - 6.8

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                                Yes, they just "control the paint" by doing nothing. Their presence alone is enough to get the rebound. **** that, if you think that you know nothing about basketball.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X