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

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

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    no its not.. so like i said.. i would bet my left n*tt on it.. im that damn sure. Roy averaged 34 minutes that series. Game 3 was a blowout so his numbers are skewed. he played about 37 minutes a game approx.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelo...14/roy-hibbert


    wade averaged 35
    http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelo...14/dwyane-wade

    bron averaged 35
    http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelo...4/lebron-james
    Why this ******** with blowouts and tweaking Roy's mpg numbers and not Bron or Wade's? Just say Roy averaged 34 mpg and Bron/Wade averaged 35. Doesn't make much of a difference. Even in the game where Roy only played 22 minutes, it must not have been too big of a blowout (12 point Miami victory) because Bron and Wade both played 35+ minutes.

    Comment


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

      To underscore the importance of Hibbert and Mahinmi in the defense.....not having a Rim Protector in the lineup ( like when Hibbert or Mahinmi goes down with some injury ) is why our defense is garbage when we have Frontcourt lineups of West/Scola/Whittington. Most notably with a West/Scola Frontcourt, we leave the middle open...but also don't have Players that deter opposing Teams from attacking the basket. Lavoy may be the closest thing we have to a Rim Protector when Hibbert or Mahinmi are down....not because he's a shotblocker...but because the guy is a literal wall that you don't want to run into. To be clear....I'm not saying that Hibbert himself is some great individual Defender.....I'm saying that as a Rim Protector ( which can AT WORST, Hibbert can be considered ABOVE AVERAGE as a "Rim Protector"....which is different than him being an Overall ABOVE AVERAGE Center ) you can clearly see the difference in how our defense responds with him on the floor and what impact he has on this Team's defense.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


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

        I think Roy is an elite level rim protector, but I came here cause the initial question was about rebounding. Something I thought was interesting this year is the Pacers have been a better team in terms of points allowed when Roy is not on the court (104.6 per 100 possession with Roy, 102.1 per 100 possessions without). What I thought was interesting is that opponents field goal percentage is lower when Roy is playing (.474 vs .487) but the offensive rebound rate is up (23% vs 20.8) So when Roy is on the court, opponents are shooting a lower percentage, but getting a higher percentage of offensive rebounds and scoring more points per possession. What I couldn't find is 3 pt shots while Roy is on the court because I'd be willing to bet opponents shoot more threes when Roy is in the middle, and that could also push up the both the offensive rebounds (long rebounds) and the points per 100 possessions.

        I've now talked myself into believing that without the three point stats, all the above is meaningless.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


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

          You sure about those opponent FG%s? Those seem awfully high. Maybe that's TS%?

          The Pacers opponent fg% is 43.7% on the year.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            You sure about those opponent FG%s? Those seem awfully high. Maybe that's TS%?

            The Pacers opponent fg% is 43.7% on the year.
            Good point! It's effective field goal percentage. This is how it defines it "This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal." eFG% = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PTM)) / FGA. Not entirely sure why TS% isn't used.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


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

              Since the effective field goal percentage is lower when Roy is playing (which takes into account threes), then it would follow that the reason we give up more points with Roy on the court is either due to free throws or because we give up more offensive rebounds. Just a note, this is the first time since 2010-2011 that the Pacers give up more points with Roy on the court than off.
              Danger Zone

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Roy worship? On this board? hahahaha
                Meh, it's a matter of perspective. I certainly can see why you would say that however from the other point of view you can't even make an off the cuff comment regarding Roy without a legion of people flying through the air to see who can land on the verbal grenade first.

                He's just a polarizing player and will be until he is no longer here (for whatever reason that may be) and will probably be that way for years to come.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


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

                  But didn't PP state in the locked out thread that he believes Roy is worth 11 mill per year. So this whole diatribe is about Roy being paid 36% more than he should. This whole thing is about 4 million dollars?!?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                    But didn't PP state in the locked out thread that he believes Roy is worth 11 mill per year. So this whole diatribe is about Roy being paid 36% more than he should. This whole thing is about 4 million dollars?!?
                    Think of the amazing talent we could have with that 4 million dollars. We could have 48% of Lance Stephenson.


                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Meh, it's a matter of perspective. I certainly can see why you would say that however from the other point of view you can't even make an off the cuff comment regarding Roy without a legion of people flying through the air to see who can land on the verbal grenade first.

                      He's just a polarizing player and will be until he is no longer here (for whatever reason that may be) and will probably be that way for years to come.
                      I agree with you. It's split about 50/50. No worship and no real hate. But only one side in this thread is acting like they are being oppressed by the Spanish government in the mid 1600s


                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I agree with you. It's split about 50/50. No worship and no real hate. But only one side in this thread is acting like they are being oppressed by the Spanish government in the mid 1600s
                        Again it is a matter of perspective. He's playing a little bit of a "role" if you will and therefor that is just part of the persona.

                        However to be perfectly honest there is the other side of the coin to this and while one side can be overly abrasive the other side can tend to have a pack dog mentality where they agree with each others posts and type post after post after post after post of stat after stat after stat after stat until the person that is the subject of their frontal assault either complies and acquiesces or as is the case here and in the other horrifying thread we have they become defiant and abrasive.

                        So it goes back to perspective and whoevers side one falls on will see the point of view they want to see.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                          Either way... Wade was teardroppinjg over Roy like it was his god given birthright. I would bet my left n*tt on it. Remember it like it was yesterday.

                          Wade was pumping em up over Roy right at the top of the lane. Hibbert was too slow to react and get up on wade at the top of the lane cause he was fearful of wade blow by's. so wade just owned him with pullups right at the sweet spot below the FT line. Roy had no chance.

                          Some blame goes to Lance... but thats Roys job to protect the paint... not just stand under the rim and hope wade came to him... wade knew where to attack... if roy stepped up wade would blow by.
                          Actually, Roy wasn't fearful of Wade blowing by him. Roy was fearful of Wade passing it to a cutter (usually a Center but sometimes LBJ himself) under the rim and then him earning an and-1.

                          Yes, it is Roy's job to protect the paint. But Wade was scoring from the FT line as you said yourself. He was beating Lance off the dribble (and off of fakes) time and time again and that put Roy in a position where he had to defend both Wade and the player that was cutting towards the basket. If Lance wasn't beat by Wade then he would shadow the cutter at the rim and that would give Roy the liberty to go up and confront Wade before he pulled up. But that wasn't the case. You cannot blame Roy for Wade beating Lance time and time again. Just like you couldn't blame Lance if Chris Bosh was scoring on Roy in the post time and time again (which never happened).

                          That's why Vogel switched PG on Wade. Wade couldn't beat PG off the dribble (or off of fakes) and thus our defensive rotations stopped breaking down and Roy was finally able to protect the rim against Wade properly.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I'm not sure that this has been brought up before......but isn't our defense designed to protect the paint, protect the perimeter but leave the middle open ( which statistically is supposed to be the lowest percentage shot to take )?

                            In Vogel's defense, the Center....whether it be Hibbert or Mahinmi....isn't supposed to leave the paint. His job is to control the paint and create a wall to prevent the scorer from getting to and scoring in the paint ( a higher percentage shot ). Vogel INTENTIONALLY leaves the "Middle" open ( which only allows for lower percentage shot )....that's why so many Teams take so many shots in that area.

                            You are right, Hibbert can ( if he chooses to ) try to contest a shot below the FT Line....you're also right that he is too slow to recover if the Player decides to drive by him.

                            But it's not Hibbert's job to defend a tear drop shot by Wade or anyone else at or near the FT line....his job is to do what he has been told to do by Vogel and stay where he is, protect the paint and try to prevent the opposing Team from taking a higher percentage shot that is closer to the basket.
                            Exactly. Hibbert has the duty to protect against teardrops and other shots below the FT line sometimes but that only happens if the guard isn't actually beat and he is instead shadowing his man (like George Hill does a lot).

                            For example, imagine a 1-5 PnR between John Wall and Marcin Gortat. If Wall straight up blows by George Hill then Roy is in a mismatch and he's forced to defend both Wall and Gortat. In that case, Roy is instructed to stay in the paint and allow Wall to pull up at the FT line. If he attempts to do anything else then the Wizards will probably take a shot right under the basket.

                            But now, let's say that George Hill is not blown by John Wall. Hill allows Wall to pass but shadows him over his right (if driving left-handed) or left (if driving right-handed) shoulder and thus prevents Wall from resetting the play by passing the ball out to the perimeter. In that case, Roy can come up and contest a pull-up from the FT line. The reason that he can do that is that Hill is still in the play and if Wall attempts to pass to Gortat then Hill can deflect the pass with ease or strip it out of Gortat's hands on the catch. This is exactly how our team is funnelling players into our Cs (both Roy and Ian). This simply cannot happen if the guard is blown by from the get go.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              He's just a polarizing player and will be until he is no longer here (for whatever reason that may be) and will probably be that way for years to come.
                              I think a lot of that boils down to inconsistency in his game (and to some degree, in his off-court persona). At times he has been a fantastic player and a great ambassador off the court for the Pacers. At other times he has been a bad player and a bit of an off-court distraction (obviously there are degrees of off-court issues, but he has made plenty of national headlines off the court for the wrong reasons).
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                Exactly. Hibbert has the duty to protect against teardrops and other shots below the FT line sometimes but that only happens if the guard isn't actually beat and he is instead shadowing his man (like George Hill does a lot).

                                For example, imagine a 1-5 PnR between John Wall and Marcin Gortat. If Wall straight up blows by George Hill then Roy is in a mismatch and he's forced to defend both Wall and Gortat. In that case, Roy is instructed to stay in the paint and allow Wall to pull up at the FT line. If he attempts to do anything else then the Wizards will probably take a shot right under the basket.

                                But now, let's say that George Hill is not blown by John Wall. Hill allows Wall to pass but shadows him over his right (if driving left-handed) or left (if driving right-handed) shoulder and thus prevents Wall from resetting the play by passing the ball out to the perimeter. In that case, Roy can come up and contest a pull-up from the FT line. The reason that he can do that is that Hill is still in the play and if Wall attempts to pass to Gortat then Hill can deflect the pass with ease or strip it out of Gortat's hands on the catch. This is exactly how our team is funnelling players into our Cs (both Roy and Ian). This simply cannot happen if the guard is blown by from the get go.
                                Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                                www.jjhughesracing.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X