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

Interesting +/- info

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

  • Interesting +/- info

    I've never been a believer in the stat. I just recently checked last years +/- stats for the Pacers and decided to check all the other teams. I realize how unfair it is to judge a player on a crappy team by their overall number but I found it interesting to see who was last on their respective teams. I found it even more interesting to find so many players with Pacers ties at the bottom of the lists. Al Harrington,Orien Greene,Primoz Brezec,Rawle Marshall & Peja Stojakovic & obviously our own players all rounded out the bottom. Some other notables Joe Johnson,Chris Duhon, Andres Nocioni, Earl Boykins, Mickael Pietrus, Troy Murphy, Rafer Alston, Juwan Howard, Maurice Williams, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Chris Paul, Desmond Mason, Chris Webber, Jarrett Jack, Zach Randolph, Rashard Lewis, Luke Ridnour & Moorris Peterson. It's obvious some players were at a disadvantage due to their teams overall poor play so look at the names not the numbers.

    Hawks: Al & Joe Johnson tied w/ -363
    Celtics: Orien Greene -90 & Al Jefferson -124
    Bobcats: Jumaine Jones -239 & Primoz -364
    Bulls: Chris Duhon -63 & Andres Nocioni -69
    Cavs: Alan Henderson -43 & Luke Jackson -49
    Mavs: Rawle Marshall 2 & D.J. Mbenga -5
    Nuggets: Reggie Evans -68 & Earl Boykins -161
    Pistons: Darko -78 & Jason Maxiell -92
    Warriors: Mickael Pietrus -109 & Troy Murphy -131
    Rockets: Rafer "Skip To My Lou" Alston -107 & Juwan Howard -285
    Pacers: Samaki Walker -16 & David Harrison -23
    Lakers: Andrew Bynum -36 & Devin Green -37
    Clippers:Vladimir Radmanovic -53 & Zeljko Rebraca -133
    Grizz: Hakim Warrick -85 & Dahntay Jones -135
    Heat: Michael Doleac -81 & Jason Kapono -110
    Bucks: Maurice Williams -110 & Jiri Welsch -168
    Wolves: Rashad McCants -130 & Eddie Griffin -145
    Nets: Scott Padgett -97 & Jeff McInnis -148
    Knicks: Jamal Crawford -353 & Eddy -381
    Hornets: Chris Paul -157 & Desmond Mason -250
    Magic: Tony Battie -120 & DeShawn Stevenson -221
    76ers: John Salmons -208 & Chris Webber -233
    Suns: Nikoloz Tskitishvili --30 & Pat Burke -49
    Blazers:Jarrett Jack-391 & Zach Randolph -493
    Kings: Ronnie Price -38 & Peja -99
    Spurs: Fabricio Oberto -22 & Sean Marks -32
    Sonics: Rashard Lewis -216 & Luke Ridnour -265
    Raptors: Matt Bonner -165 & Mo Pete -230
    Jazz: Keith McLeod-125 & Devin Brown -173
    Wiz: Calvin Booth -20 & Chucky Atkins -70
    I'm in these bands
    The Humans
    Dr. Goldfoot
    The Bar Brawlers
    ME

  • #2
    Re: Interesting +/- info

    If the team constantly loses - the more minutes You play, the worse +/- You gonna get.

    But if You take a .500 team, You will need some stronger arguments to prove, that guards, having -75 and -49 are really better than the one who has +10.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interesting +/- info

      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
      I found it even more interesting to find so many players with Pacers ties at the bottom of the lists.
      Darn.
      And I was telling DW all along, man your'e holding the page upside down!
      The guy just wouldn't listen.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interesting +/- info

        Originally posted by Beowulfas View Post
        If the team constantly loses - the more minutes You play, the worse +/- You gonna get.

        But if You take a .500 team, You will need some stronger arguments to prove, that guards, having -75 and -49 are really better than the one who has +10.
        I think its easy to prove that individual plus/ minus, in isolation, is even less meaningful than "points per game" for determining who is the "better" player.

        (PS, the guy with plus-10 is only plus-10 because he's played so few minutes. Leave him on the court for Tinsley's minutes and we'll see him get to -200 in a hurry. The coach, for all his flaws (and he has plenty of flaws, IMO), does seem to recognize when to get the plus-10 guy off the court.)
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interesting +/- info

          Originally posted by Beowulfas View Post
          If the team constantly loses - the more minutes You play, the worse +/- You gonna get.

          But if You take a .500 team, You will need some stronger arguments to prove, that guards, having -75 and -49 are really better than the one who has +10.

          I agree, partially why I said look at the names not the numbers. I thought it was interesting to see so many players who are/were integral to their teams success falling into the two worst +/- positions on the team. I thought it just further disproved the worth of the stat when comparing players. When someone makes the statement this player should be starting or sitting because their +/- is better/worse than this guys etc... I think it's safe to assume that Al Harrington and Joe Johnson gave the Hawks the best chance to win last year as Chris Paul gave the Hornets the best chance to win. According to this stat though they were all last or second to last in +/- for their teams last year. That means the rest of the guys in the regular rotation were performing better? Kirk Snyder and Speedy Claxton both had + and played significant minutes but we both know they shouldn't ever play a second more than Chris Paul. I just threw these numbers out to check some other teams for comparison since so many seem to be harping on the Pacers +/- this year.
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interesting +/- info

            Wait a minute, I didn't read Beowulfas' post correctly. I disagree with that. The numbers are all relative to team play. If you're at the bottom you're at the bottom. Just because one guy is at the top doesn't make him any more instrumental to winning and I think by pointing out who was at the bottom last year proves that. Chris Paul is better than Kirk Snyder is both personal performance and ability to help his team win but had a lower +/-. I think it's harder to prove your point with these numbers on the table.
            I'm in these bands
            The Humans
            Dr. Goldfoot
            The Bar Brawlers
            ME

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interesting +/- info

              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
              Wait a minute, I didn't read Beowulfas' post correctly. I disagree with that. The numbers are all relative to team play. If you're at the bottom you're at the bottom. Just because one guy is at the top doesn't make him any more instrumental to winning and I think by pointing out who was at the bottom last year proves that. Chris Paul is better than Kirk Snyder is both personal performance and ability to help his team win but had a lower +/-. I think it's harder to prove your point with these numbers on the table.
              To see who are the best players regarding team play as a unit, you need to glance at most time played players with highest +/- IMO. It would be about 30 minutes or more PT (because these players play in almost all units and who come with high +/-, it's most believable they are the best (not the best individually, but have the most impact to teams' victories)). Pacers best players right now are IMO: JO, DG, Jax.

              The players who don't play much (let's say about 10-20 minutes) and have a good +/- are - dunno how to describe it better - maybe players with whom the whole team as a unit performs better in those 10-20 minutes. While Saras don't have a very high +/-, but it's still +, the most effective player is DA without competition - his +37 is just outstanding in his limited minutes.

              For example we see that JO and Al don't compliment each other well. When Al and JO is on the court, JO is almost out of the game. Yes, Al have nice stats, but JO not very.And overall +/- is not high. And when JO plays in other unit, he plays much better and that he has a much better +/- than Al means JO plays much better with other units, while Al plays, the team and the unit in which he plays don't play well, despite the fact Al plays well. But he plays only alone, and others don't play very good with him. It's better to have 5 average players in one unit, than to have one very good and others, who can't play near him.

              Bad +/- means, that when the player is on the court, other players with him also have an equal +/- rating. If he has -10 in 10 minutes, other players who played with him, also have -10 in those 10 minutes.

              But of course, when a player plays only 15 minutes, we don't know, if his +/- would be higher or lower playing more time. But if a team has good +/- when he plays, that's not so bad. And if a player, who plays much, has -2, that doesn't mean he plays bad, because maybe he's the only one, who can have the highest +/- in the team playing 35 minutes.
              "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

              - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Interesting +/- info

                And BTW, Chris Paul is the best player in Hornets team so far.
                Wade is the best Heat player.
                Nowitzki best Mavericks player.
                Yao best Rockets player.
                Iverson best 76-ers player.
                Howard best Orlando player.
                Duncan best Spurs player.
                Pierce best Boston player and so on.
                "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Interesting +/- info

                  According to NBA.com , the Pacers starting five is the best 5 man unit we have. JO, Jack, Al, Mel Mel & Danny have a plus 15. I'm not sure how current their +/- stats are but that's what their site says.


                  Scenario:

                  Scot Pollard plays his tail off for 43 minutes. He collects 17 boards, 7 assists, 14 blocks, scores 35 points on a perfect shooting night. His play has single handedly kept his team within five points. With five minutes to go while attempting to take a charge he fouls out. Over the next five minutes the other team self-destructs and turns it over a few times, misses a few shots and his team ends up winning by one point. Pollard ends up with a -5 on the +/- stat. Explain please.......

                  Look at the Hawks +/- from last year Joe Johnson and Al Harrington had the worst +/- for them. Explain please.....

                  The +/- isn't a barometer for individual play.

                  Jasikevicius vs Boston.

                  Enters game w/ 2:58 to go in the 1st down by seven.
                  Missed shot @ :30
                  assist @ 10:27 2nd
                  T/O @ 9:50
                  T/O @ 8:20
                  missed shot @ 7:57
                  T/O @ 7:56
                  assist @ 7:34
                  replaced by Tinsley @ 7:22 down by four.

                  Runi gets a plus 3. He played a little under 8 minutes missed two shots, got two assists and turned it over 3 times. The reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead had nothing to do with Runi but everything to do with the fact that Pierce went out with :54 to go in the first and returned @ the 8:25 mark in the second. So Pierce was out for 5 of the 8 minutes he played that's how we cut into the lead.
                  I'm in these bands
                  The Humans
                  Dr. Goldfoot
                  The Bar Brawlers
                  ME

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Interesting +/- info

                    Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                    The +/- isn't a barometer for individual play.
                    That sums it up neatly. It's an almost completely worthless stat, and I generally pay attention to statistical analyses.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Interesting +/- info

                      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                      According to NBA.com , the Pacers starting five is the best 5 man unit we have. JO, Jack, Al, Mel Mel & Danny have a plus 15. I'm not sure how current their +/- stats are but that's what their site says.
                      It's only one 5 man unit. They have played in different units too.


                      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                      Scenario:

                      Scot Pollard plays his tail off for 43 minutes. He collects 17 boards, 7 assists, 14 blocks, scores 35 points on a perfect shooting night. His play has single handedly kept his team within five points. With five minutes to go while attempting to take a charge he fouls out. Over the next five minutes the other team self-destructs and turns it over a few times, misses a few shots and his team ends up winning by one point. Pollard ends up with a -5 on the +/- stat. Explain please.......
                      Yes, he had nice stats and was a beast when he was on the court, but other 4 players in a unit didn't play very good as we see all teams play when Scot played.

                      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                      Look at the Hawks +/- from last year Joe Johnson and Al Harrington had the worst +/- for them. Explain please.....
                      Hawks ***** last year. To find out best players on the team you have to glance at players, who have played the most and had the highest +/- (about 30 min or more).

                      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                      The +/- isn't a barometer for individual play.
                      No, it's not. Individual play is individual play. This is to show how the team played as a unit.


                      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                      Runi gets a plus 3. He played a little under 8 minutes missed two shots, got two assists and turned it over 3 times. The reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead had nothing to do with Runi but everything to do with the fact that Pierce went out with :54 to go in the first and returned @ the 8:25 mark in the second. So Pierce was out for 5 of the 8 minutes he played that's how we cut into the lead.
                      So the only reason Pacers cut into the lead was Pierce was out for 5 of the 8 minutes and not the Pacers team playing better at the that unit was in?
                      "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                      - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Interesting +/- info

                        Okay.
                        The best 5 man unit we have is the starting unit. Not another unit. Just that one. You can look up 5 man , 4man, 3man, 2man or individual +/- stats on the internet. The starting unit has performed better than any other 5 players on the court at any given time. Regardless of whether a starter is part of one of those other units.

                        The Scot Pollard thing was a hypothetical. My point was a player can be the best on the floor and still come up negative. If that player is the only reason his team is still alive how does that make sense?

                        There is no argument to who the best players on the Hawks were last year. It was Al & Johnson. Yet they still had the worst +/- stats on the team.

                        My point is...it's a bogus stat.

                        I would say yes the only reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead was Pierce's absence. Not stellar play by the Pacers. When Pierce came back in they were only up by 2. The next time Pierce sat down he'd scored 19 points and grabbed four rebounds and his team was up by 16.
                        I'm in these bands
                        The Humans
                        Dr. Goldfoot
                        The Bar Brawlers
                        ME

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Interesting +/- info

                          Who are the best players of Pacers by +/-?
                          Team leader JO.
                          Team players Runi-Armstrong-Foster-Granger.

                          All black holes and bad basketball players (yes, Tinsley and Daniels are just bad basketball players) are the last.
                          Jackson, Daniels, Tinsley and Al.

                          Too hard to admit, or again - co-insidence?

                          If a player is good on 1-on-1 street basketball, it does not mean he is a good fit to NBA.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Interesting +/- info

                            Originally posted by Beowulfas View Post
                            If a player is good on 1-on-1 street basketball, it does not mean he is a good fit to NBA.
                            I'd disagree.. NBA is ruled by some extremely good streetballers. even the champions are led by a streetballer.. teamplay is irrelevant as long as players can create wins simply out of improvisation and personal skill. NBA is primitive by nature and it rarely relies on teamplay both on deffense and on offense...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Interesting +/- info

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              Okay.
                              The best 5 man unit we have is the starting unit. Not another unit. Just that one. You can look up 5 man , 4man, 3man, 2man or individual +/- stats on the internet. The starting unit has performed better than any other 5 players on the court at any given time. Regardless of whether a starter is part of one of those other units.
                              I don't know, but Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-O'Neal wasn't so effective so far according to http://www.82games.com/0607/0607IND2.HTM -

                              Min played 121, points scored 229, points allowed 229, margin 0, wins 3, losses 6, win % 0.333.

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              The Scot Pollard thing was a hypothetical. My point was a player can be the best on the floor and still come up negative. If that player is the only reason his team is still alive how does that make sense?
                              Yes, he can be the best on the floor, but with him the team losses, because other players don't play very well with him as a unit. He can score 50 points, take 25 rebounds, but still the team losses, because he plays only one. A player, who have a very bad +/- compared to his teammates, who play as much as him (30 min or more), is not useful to the team, because that means, that other players can't play with him good. You can be the best in stats. But you play alone. Not with a team. Separately.

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              There is no argument to who the best players on the Hawks were last year. It was Al & Johnson. Yet they still had the worst +/- stats on the team.
                              I would want to see other players' +/-, who have played as much as they. I don't believe any such player had a very good +/-, because Hawks lost game after game. It's impossible to have a good +/- on that team for a player who played much time.

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              I would say yes the only reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead was Pierce's absence. Not stellar play by the Pacers. When Pierce came back in they were only up by 2. The next time Pierce sat down he'd scored 19 points and grabbed four rebounds and his team was up by 16.
                              Me personally don't think that was the only reason, but if Pierce was the only reason the Boston could play, then ask first squad, what they have done to neutralize him. Pierce most of the time played against our best players. And he owned them alone.
                              "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                              - Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X