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

Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

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

  • Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

    One positive I envisioned when we named O'Brien the head coach was that he would be able to maximize a player's talent and ability. Stats can be a little misleading with this team because of their increased volume of possessions, and because of increased minutes, but this is slightly interesting. A look at some player in alphabetical order:


    Ike Diogu is on pace to have career highs in points at 13.7 (7.2), rebounds at 4.3 (3.7), and assists at 1.0 (0.5) [previous career highs in parentheses].

    Mike Dunleavy is on pace to have career highs in points at 16.6 (13.4) and rebounds at 6.1 (5.9)

    Jeff Foster is on pace to have career highs in points at 7.1 (7.0) and rebounds at 9.6 (9.1)

    Danny Granger is on pace to have career highs in points at 18.4 (13.9), rebounds at 6.1 (4.9), assists at 1.9 (1.4), and blocks at 1.4 (0.8).

    Jamaal Tinsley is on pace to have career highs in rebounds at 4.6 (4.0) and assists at 8.4 (8.1).

    Shawne Williams is on pace to have career highs in points at 9.9 (3.9), rebounds at 3.8 (1.8), and assists at 1.0 (0.5).


    Aside from what one believes as to the reasoning for these increases, however big or small they are, one thing should stick out:

    It's VERY relevant when more than half of your core rotation players are averaging career highs in multiple key statistics.

  • #2
    Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

    But of course some of that is pace related. Certainly not all of it, but a fair amount.

    And playing time as well. How many guys improving their PPG have also increased their FGAs? Is Foster hitting a career high on rebounding PCT (reb/possible reb)? I don't even know who keeps that one.

    Tinsley is on pace to have a career high in missed shots too I'm betting, though I haven't verified.

    Now Dun's 3P%, that is nice.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      But of course some of that is pace related. Certainly not all of it, but a fair amount.

      And playing time as well. How many guys improving their PPG have also increased their FGAs? Is Foster hitting a career high on rebounding PCT (reb/possible reb)? I don't even know who keeps that one.

      Tinsley is on pace to have a career high in missed shots too I'm betting, though I haven't verified.

      Now Dun's 3P%, that is nice.
      Personally, I think it's weighted by the higher volume, plus career highs in mpg for a lot of those guys (even Foster). But, I think the career highs in mpg are being given because of an increase in quality of play. Again, I think the key here is the amount of players that are having career years. It's early, but six is a lot. And if you're looking at playing time, I think it's asking quite a bit of players who aren't used to getting this amount of playing time. What I mean is that these guys are all adjusting to themselves and each other at the same time, and that could hamper individual numbers/team play. But it isn't.

      Also, I think there are stats (i.e. assists) that normally wouldn't fluctuate as much as they are just because of increased playing time. It's also relative to position (bpg/rpg for a PG).

      If we're going a little deeper, I would expect our team FG% to drop from last year's based on the higher volume (usually more shots=lower %). An interesting thing about the higher volume/pace is that % would lower due to more shots taken by fatigued players, but increases by higher amount of easy baskets.

      I think our FG% this year will be relative to the mpg players are getting. For example, the higher volume/pace should always mean more easy baskets, and less mpg, or shorter playing stretches should account for a lower number of "fatigued" shots. Notice how many shots last night were hitting the front of the rim at the beginning of the game?

      I think Tinsley's FG% will increase. With the exception of last night, I think his shot selection has gotten better lately. A lot more offense is initiating in the post for him.

      I think Dun's FG% will fall a little bit, O'Neals will get much better. Foster may get close to a career low, as I suspect he will finish the season with a career high in FGA/game (taking deeper shots, rather than just dunks, layups, putbacks, and bailouts).
      Last edited by imawhat; 11-30-2007, 03:01 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

        Good OP, imawhat.

        Here's something else that I've noticed.

        After 16 games, the Pacers are 8-0 when they have a higher FG% than their opponent. But they are only 3-6 when they take more shots than their opponent.

        It's wrong to characterize O'Brien's plan as simply speeding up to get more shots. Rather, he wants the team to hurry up in order to get more easy baskets.

        The Pacers had only 79 field goal attempts against the Blazers, and only 76 against the Jazz -- both wins.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

          One more game like the last and I think Tinsely may crack the top 5 in assist per game, and Foster would jump to the top 12 in rebounding. Tinsely is currently 6th., and Foster 17th.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

            I agree with Seth in that some of this is, of course, based on increased mpg (and pace too). I mean, of course Ike will have a "career year" if he plays nearly 10 mpg more than he ever has in his life (although, at this point his stats from three games are statistically irrelevent, IMO). The same thing for Shawne. When you double the minutes, it's not unrealistic to expect double the production...although it is notable that his scoring has increased at a higher rate than his minutes (shooting/making a lot more threes has to do with this) and his percentages are elevated across the board.

            Dunleavy, to me, is the most interesting case of improvement thus far.

            He's averaging a full 3 points more per night than he ever did in GS (with similar mpg) and actually putting up more for us this year in fewer mpg than he did post trade last Spring. And way more importantly, IMO, his percentages are all currently career bests. His FG% is off the charts, he hasn't shot threes this efficiently since 2005, and even his FT% is a full 5% better than ever before. All this -- especially the FT% -- tells me that he's playing with more confidence than he has in a long time. Yes, he's still "disappeared" in a few games as our Warrior friends told us he would, but he's been pretty consistent, done very little I would call negative, and since he's always been considered someone who "can't handle the pressure" of being a 3rd Pick, starting in the NBA, coming out of Duke, yadda, yadda, yadda, it really, really is nice to see him "get his swagger back." I mean, for an already good FT shooter (77% career) to increase that by 7% (yes, I know it's early and sample size), really says to me that he's very confident and feeling good. I mean, he'll never be a guy that demands the ball, but he looks like he wants shots and wants to get to the line now. That's significant.

            As for Danny...similar. Everything about his stats (FG%, FGA, PPG, RPG) shows nothing but progression, which, I believe, is what most of us expect. Not some exponential explosion, but years of linear progression. He's on track.

            Foster is Foster, which is nice. Although I've been noticing we trust him with the ball in his hands a little more on the elbow, and he's made quite a few nice little dishes. I mean, I've been impressed enough to throw out some "WOW"s on a few of his little interior bounce passes to cutters this season. Nice to know that he's capable of that in this offense, and good to see the APG numbers reflect it early (1.3 apg this year as opposed to 0.7 for his career).

            Jamaal is Jamaal. And he's largely been the good version of Jamaal so far this year. If he can hit more open threes and keep up everything else, I'll be migthy happy.
            Last edited by JayRedd; 11-30-2007, 10:25 AM.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Good OP, imawhat.

              Here's something else that I've noticed.

              After 16 games, the Pacers are 8-0 when they have a higher FG% than their opponent. But they are only 3-6 when they take more shots than their opponent.

              It's wrong to characterize O'Brien's plan as simply speeding up to get more shots. Rather, he wants the team to hurry up in order to get more easy baskets.

              The Pacers had only 79 field goal attempts against the Blazers, and only 76 against the Jazz -- both wins.
              I agree. Also to note, this is what Rick was preaching to start last season too. Honestly I just think JOB has a better grasp on the implementation behind the style which has helped.

              Also, by the time Dun came on board and Shawne started earning minutes they had long since given up on the early offense game.

              Then again, this team is truly RUNNING, as in breaks for easy scores, much better than I can recall in years (like back into the 90's at least). They aren't just early sets, they are doing a better job in full transition. I put that on Shawne, Dun and Danny because last year it was basically Tinsley and no one.


              Again on Foster, look at his per48. He's always been a top 10 caliber rebounder, he just doesn't play the minutes. Some of that might have been coaching, but he's also had several injuries that limited his PT too.


              Tinsley, career high in FGAs, career low in FG%. Am I wrong to consider this a bad combination. Hey, you know that thing you are doing poorly? Do more of that!


              Redd, I totally agree on Dunleavy. I said pre-season that a key factor to this team beating my low expectations was his 3P%. Well to my happy surprise he's drastically improved that from recent years. As you point out, across the board he is playing much better than he did last season or in recent years in GS.

              The only, nagging caveat has been his NOV numbers last year in GS. Go look at those and tell me why he fell back off the table? And from that, could it happen again? The fact is that his improved play, especially the shooting, is a major factor in this team being in the playoff hunt (early of course).
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-30-2007, 02:54 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

                I'm very encouraged by the team... enough so that I shelled out for LP after swearing I wouldn't if they didn't do a summer overhaul. A couple points, however:

                With our young players (anybody on a rookie contract) like Shawne, Danny, Ike, and Hulk, this is somewhat expected. They're developing their skills and getting increased minutes. You'd expect the same thing no matter what the coach (although I'm not sure Rick could have gotten through to Hulk, unless of course it's entirely attributable to a contract year).

                With Ike / Shawne / Murphy, it's too soon to say what's going to happen because we haven't really had all three at the same time. Shawne wouldn't (mightn't?) be getting the minutes if Ike was available.

                But yeah, I'm pretty pleased.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  One positive I envisioned when we named O'Brien the head coach was that he would be able to maximize a player's talent and ability.
                  Ok, I really don't want to be the guy who makes everything about Jermaine, but why is it that we assume Obie can maximize Ike's talent or Shawne's talent, but not Jermaine's talent? I mean, he's never had a good big man to work with, but it doesn't seem like he's a guy who can't figure stuff out.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Ok, I really don't want to be the guy who makes everything about Jermaine, but why is it that we assume Obie can maximize Ike's talent or Shawne's talent, but not Jermaine's talent? I mean, he's never had a good big man to work with, but it doesn't seem like he's a guy who can't figure stuff out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

                      OMG JEEZ!!!!!!!!!

                      http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_071130.html

                      In the meantime, Jamaal Tinsley and Danny Granger have assumed leadership roles. Tinsley has averaged 19.3 points, 9.7 assists, 6.8 rebounds and 2.83 steals in games O’Neal has missed, including double-doubles in the last three.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        OMG JEEZ!!!!!!!!!

                        http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_071130.html

                        In the meantime, Jamaal Tinsley and Danny Granger have assumed leadership roles. Tinsley has averaged 19.3 points, 9.7 assists, 6.8 rebounds and 2.83 steals in games O’Neal has missed, including double-doubles in the last three.
                        Yeah, that jumped out at me too.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Quick (and interesting) look at individual stats

                          You do realize, of course, that there's only one direction to go from here ...

                          [/doom-gloom]

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X