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

  • #46
    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Lance and PG played with the back-ups as well. Our rotation was based around the idea that one of Lance or PG would be on the court at all times.

    Therefore, Lance and PG shouldn't affect Hibbert's on-off stats because they played both when Hibbert was on and when he was off.
    Just realized a bit of this, you're right, one of either Lance or PG were on the floor at almost all times.
    Danger Zone

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

      Soo, Roy (The Unselfish Dude) Hibbert needs a new rule called assist to rebounds, (ATR). Because he is not getting recognition for being a team player, thus the deflation of his value and the Pacers ultimately getting screwed for having the greatest team player to ever lace them up.
      Thx guys, I feel much better now.
      Last edited by Pacer Fan; 08-21-2014, 01:57 PM.
      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        True but not statistically accurate. Hibbert was never on the court without one of either PG and Lance, and both were on the court for the majority of his minutes. the starting lineup played the majority of the teams minutes anyway. Our two best rebounding lineups were with Ian playing center, and our third best was with West, but these line-ups didn't get much burn in time of actual minutes. Anyway, a link to the lineups used, minutes per lineup and with the rebounding data: http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../2014/lineups/
        Hibbert and Paul George had the 2 best on/off rebounding numbers of our starting unit. Hill was about even, then west and lance had the only 2 negative on/off rebounding statistics. Lance was the worst.

        Now Lance played the most minutes of the starters with the bench, but Scola, CJ, solo hill and Granger were all plus team rebounders according to the on/off statistic. Turner, and to a lesser extent Rasual and OJ were negative rebounders.

        The data doesn't point to an obvious bench/starter split. Hibbert was significantly better than Ian, Scola better than West, and after Granger left Paul George was the only wing or guard left that played regular minutes that had a positive impact.

        EDIT: after looking over your lineups, I'm convinced the rebounding difference makers are, in order, PG, Danny, and Hibbert. Danny actually had a dramatic effect on our team rebounding when he played.
        Last edited by aamcguy; 08-21-2014, 02:17 PM.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          Danny actually had a dramatic effect on our team rebounding when he played.
          Well, yeah - he chucked up so many shots that there were significantly more rebounds to be had.

          (Or should that NOT be green ???????)

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
            Well, yeah - he chucked up so many shots that there were significantly more rebounds to be had.

            (Or should that NOT be green ???????)
            We pulled in 6.6% more defensive rebounds with him playing instead of sitting and only 1.5% more offensive rebounds.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

              What are on/off rebounding numbers by definition?

              Thanks
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                What are on/off rebounding numbers by definition?

                Thanks
                Team rebounding percentage with player on the court/off.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                  Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                  Team rebounding percentage with player on the court/off.
                  Ok, quick rundown of the rebounding percentage numbers for our starting five:
                  Lance - 69.1%
                  PG - 61.5%
                  West - 60.2%
                  Hill - 57.3%
                  Hibbert - 50%

                  Of the starting 5, Lance played the most with "backups"
                  Ian - 49%
                  Granger - 58.1%
                  Watson - 49.8%
                  Scola - 53.9%

                  So it makes sense that Lance's numbers for on/off would be skewered based on the line-ups he was playing with. Essentially, our starting 5 apart from Hibbert are excellent at their position for rebounding percentage, but our back-ups tended to be much worse. It would also make sense Hibbert got the benefit from playing with the starting 5 the most as he very rarely played with the bench players.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    Ok, quick rundown of the rebounding percentage numbers for our starting five:
                    Lance - 69.1%
                    PG - 61.5%
                    West - 60.2%
                    Hill - 57.3%
                    Hibbert - 50%

                    Of the starting 5, Lance played the most with "backups"
                    Ian - 49%
                    Granger - 58.1%
                    Watson - 49.8%
                    Scola - 53.9%

                    So it makes sense that Lance's numbers for on/off would be skewered based on the line-ups he was playing with. Essentially, our starting 5 apart from Hibbert are excellent at their position for rebounding percentage, but our back-ups tended to be much worse. It would also make sense Hibbert got the benefit from playing with the starting 5 the most as he very rarely played with the bench players.
                    Couple other interesting stats that also back-up what Since86 posted earlier. 47.4% of Hibberts rebounds were contested chances. West was second highest on the starting unit at 34.8 then Lance at 24.7. To me I take this as Hibbert on the offensive boards and playing a role defensively that does not allow for the easy defensive rebounds. It also explains his lower rebounding percentage.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      Ok, quick rundown of the rebounding percentage numbers for our starting five:
                      Lance - 69.1%
                      PG - 61.5%
                      West - 60.2%
                      Hill - 57.3%
                      Hibbert - 50%

                      Of the starting 5, Lance played the most with "backups"
                      Ian - 49%
                      Granger - 58.1%
                      Watson - 49.8%
                      Scola - 53.9%

                      So it makes sense that Lance's numbers for on/off would be skewered based on the line-ups he was playing with. Essentially, our starting 5 apart from Hibbert are excellent at their position for rebounding percentage, but our back-ups tended to be much worse. It would also make sense Hibbert got the benefit from playing with the starting 5 the most as he very rarely played with the bench players.
                      I'm not sure what statistic you're quoting, but its not either team rebounding percentage or individual rebounding percentage (both in terms of ALL possible rebounds). For an average player, those figures would be at ~50% and ~10%.

                      Are you looking at percentage of rebounds grabbed vs. those grabbed by his positional counterpart on the opposing team? That would be one way of looking at how good an individual is at rebounding, but does not provide any information about how much a player such as Hibbert helps/doesn't help team rebounding. The premise of the article, or at least of much of the discussion on PD, is that Hibbert is a below average rebounder but it appears he remains a net positive for us on the boards because he blocks out consistently and effectively.

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      Couple other interesting stats that also back-up what Since86 posted earlier. 47.4% of Hibberts rebounds were contested chances. West was second highest on the starting unit at 34.8 then Lance at 24.7. To me I take this as Hibbert on the offensive boards and playing a role defensively that does not allow for the easy defensive rebounds. It also explains his lower rebounding percentage.
                      I think this is an excellent point.
                      Last edited by aamcguy; 08-21-2014, 04:46 PM.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        Just realized a bit of this, you're right, one of either Lance or PG were on the floor at almost all times.
                        Yep, that was my point. One of Lance or PG were on the floor at all times and thus those two cannot influence one way or the other an individual's on-off stats.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                          How do you account for successful team rebounding?

                          Roy doesn't put up eye popping RPG stats, fine. The point of the article is simple, that this is irrelevant. Roy does in fact contribute to a successful team rebounding concept in a meaningful way.

                          The most important stat listed is this. The team rebounds better when Roy is on the floor than when he is off the floor. I realize there are posters who absolutely refuse to recognize such an "advanced" stat (some prefer to watch basketball with their gut). That one seems pretty straight forward and easy to track to my eyes. Roy on the floor, better rebounding, Roy off the floor, worse rebounding. Simple numbers. Its not like David West is a monster rebounder making him look better by playing in the same lineup, its easy to suppose that if the guards are getting a lot of rebounds, someone is blocking out effectively.



                          If we suppose this is true, and we also suppose that by boxing out Hibbert is helping the team rebound better (and we have already confirmed that the Pacers are a good rebounding team) Then I don't see a problem with this. He's simply using the tools he has to maximize his effectiveness.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                            I remember some of the same stat people claiming Troy Murphy was a good team defender. Memories. I am glad they are memories...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                              So apparently all of our big men are terrible rebounders yet we somehow still manage to be one of the top rebounding teams in the league.
                              Last edited by Eleazar; 08-22-2014, 09:03 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                                Our wings were very good rebounders. Let's see how it turns out this year. If Roy's blocking out is the be-all-end-all to team rebounding we should be fine.

                                Edit: Scola is indeed a poor rebounder and Ian has butter on his hands. I like them overall but rebounding is not their strong point. Scola is a good shooter and Ian is athletic and a good shot blocker/rim protector. But rebounding? I really don't think so. We are talking average in the league as backups. Not terrible if you look across the league, but we were supposed to be a contender.
                                Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-21-2014, 09:35 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X