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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    That's a very good argument for effective FG%. TS% also incorporates free throws, which would be why high volume-low percentage free throw shooting all time great centers of this league post bad TS%. Neither reward "high volume, low percentage scorers" though. They do, however, account for the fact that some shots get you more points than others.

    Additionally, depending on your offensive scheme three point misses are either positive or negative. Three point shots are both offensively rebounded at a higher rate than other shots and more likely to result in fast break shots for the defensive squad. However, with a good offensive rebounding + transition defense scheme you can eliminate most of the would-be fast breaks. So with a good scheme in place, as long as you are shooting in the .34+ range for 3 point shooting they are quality shots.

    Basically, on good defensive teams 3 point shot misses are in the neutral-positive range while on bad defensive teams 3 point shot misses are devastating.

    I would disagree that FG% is useless though. If you're shooting 20% from the field as a whole, but shooting 45% from the 3 pt line, it's pretty clear that you're taking a lot of shots that you shouldn't be taking. This would be an extreme example of a high volume shooter gone wrong. There are high volume shooters, however, that are actually a large net positive offensively despite shooting a poorer percentage than your teammates. Danny was one of these "good" high volume shooters, at least in the last season he played. It's why I'm personally excited to see him integrated with the team again: with Paul George being our volume shooter and averaging in the upper 40 percents, Danny doesn't have to be a volume shooter anymore. He can shoot high quality shots and pass the rock on when he's well covered.
    I will explain TS% vs eFG% next when they're ready. At the moment I had to explain the importance of three's as Sollozo was confused, and thought good three point shooters actually HURT teams.

    Also, if you're shooting 20% field goals, 45% from three, and shooting 30 free throw attempts per game, you're probably scoring really efficiently. FG% tells us little, to nothing. Once again, you always look at TS% to see if they're scoring efficiently. You look at eFG% to see if they're shooting efficiently. End o' story.

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by mattie View Post
      I will explain TS% vs eFG% next when they're ready. At the moment I had to explain the importance of three's as Sollozo was confused, and thought good three point shooters actually HURT teams.

      LOL I never said anything of the sort.

      I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        LOL I never said anything of the sort.

        I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......
        So TS% is obscure now?

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Over the last two pages you still have a lot of questions to answer. I dumbed it down for you. Everyone has explained in detail the simple information you were having trouble understanding... .

          I know you have to finally get it after all that was said. I would either clarify yourself, or if you're still confused I have no need to continue any sort of discussion with you in this thread. =)

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by mattie View Post
            So TS% is obscure now?

            Mainstream sites like ESPN and sportsline don't have it on their player pages. You have to go to an advanced website like basketballreference to find it. So yes, by definition it is obscure. But obscure doesn't mean unimportant.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Mainstream sites like ESPN and sportsline don't have it on their player pages. You have to go to an advanced website like basketballreference to find it. So yes, by definition it is obscure. But obscure doesn't mean unimportant.
              ESPN references TS% all the time.

              NBA.com has TS% all over the place. In fact, it is nearly impossible to read any NBA dedicated website without a reference to the statistic. So no it's not obscure.

              But. Even if it was. What's the point? What are you arguing? Are simply trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong earlier? Or are you still confused?

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                LOL I never said anything of the sort.

                I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......
                You did say TS% is a statistic that gives an advantage to "three point chuckers", while doesn't account for pure volume scorers. You were completely wrong about that.

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  You did say TS% is a statistic that gives an advantage to "three point chuckers", while doesn't account for pure volume scorers. You were completely wrong about that.
                  Yes, I was wrong that TS% gives advantage to three point chuckers. It's eFG% that gives an advantage to three point chuckers.

                  But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    These stats allow chuckers who jack up a lot of shots and shoot low FG% to compensate. They don't take into account that missed shots create rebounding opportunities where the other team gets the ball. OK, so Jordan and Granger have the same "TS". I refuse to admit that means Granger was just as "efficient" as 45. Granger shot 6% less than Jordan in real life, which means that his misses created more opportunities for a defense to rebound the ball and score.
                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

                    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.
                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Lebron is 57th on the list. Jordan is 71st. Those are two of the top 10 players in NBA history. The list is a complete joke.
                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Let me guess, he was also more efficient than Michael Jordan......

                    Also, stop trying to change your comments, like you just trying to say the statistic was "obscure." You tried to argue it was a joke.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Yes, I was wrong that TS% gives advantage to three point chuckers. It's eFG% that gives an advantage to three point chuckers.

                      But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?
                      eFG% simply measures how well a player is shooting from the field. period. It doesn't give an "advantage" to three point chuckers.


                      TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by mattie View Post
                        TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.
                        0.44 is the average number of free throw attempts that end a possession. That number would be 0.5 if we're only counting regular free throws (since FTA's would come in pairs and only one would actually end a possession). But then there are "and 1"s and technical free throws and 3 FTAs for a fouled 3pt attempt. So 0.44 is the approximation someone came up with in the old days.

                        It's true though that 0.44 is found to be "close enough". But there are more accurate ways to count it if one is so inclined.

                        Btw, mattie, I'm not sure you're doing a good job making the case for advanced statistics. TS% definitely is not the end all for efficiency. aamcguy makes arguments for eFG% and FG%, and I might mention PPS as well. But if the topic is still Granger, I'm pretty sure he's ranked as an efficient player by most metrics.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                          But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?
                          As Mattie said, they are trying to adjust for the fact that free throws don't correspond with possessions like shots do. You have technical free throws that aren't a possession at all. You have and 1's where you already have an attempted shot on the possession. You have situations where you have 2 and sometimes 3 free throws. The .44 is gathered from past NBA data as the right coefficient to account for those factors.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            0.44 is the average number of free throw attempts that end a possession. That number would be 0.5 if we're only counting regular free throws (since FTA's would come in pairs and only one would actually end a possession). But then there are "and 1"s and technical free throws and 3 FTAs for a fouled 3pt attempt. So 0.44 is the approximation someone came up with in the old days.

                            It's true though that 0.44 is found to be "close enough". But there are more accurate ways to count it if one is so inclined.

                            Btw, mattie, I'm not sure you're doing a good job making the case for advanced statistics. TS% definitely is not the end all for efficiency. aamcguy makes arguments for eFG% and FG%, and I might mention PPS as well. But if the topic is still Granger, I'm pretty sure he's ranked as an efficient player by most metrics.
                            Of course it's not. But I refuse to go beyond TS% at the moment, if someone is struggling to understand such a simple statistic.

                            Edit- Of course PPP is important, but eFG% as stated early measures actual shooting from the field yet doesn't tell us how efficient a player is at all. I a player can shoot poorly yet be an efficient scorer, or a player can shoot great from the field and be an inefficient scorer.
                            Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013, 10:16 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              eFG% simply measures how well a player is shooting from the field. period. It doesn't give an "advantage" to three point chuckers.


                              TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.
                              I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

                              Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

                              Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

                              Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


                              So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

                              Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                I spent so much time pushing back with him that it brought out my dark side something fierce, and I'm not anxious to do it again
                                OK Spider-Man ...... what kind of person talks like that?
                                Last edited by vnzla81; 11-04-2013, 10:46 AM.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X