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

  • #31
    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Roy has to box out instead of go for the rebound because his man will generally beat him to the ball or tip it in. Compare that to how Andrew Bynum or Dwight Howard play in the paint. They own that territory. I suppose Bynum is done but...as illustration. So, yes, the Pacers are left with someone else cleaning the glass. That is why Lance Stephenson led the Indiana Pacers in rebounds last year.

    None of the Pacers have a knack for rebounding except the guards. David West simply isn't athletic enough and while you don't need to have great jumping ability it helps if you have a good motor. Neither Roy nor David have great motors. Ian lacks technique and does not have good hands so he's not going to help. These are the issues. We simply don't have the personnel and it just got worse with Lance Stephenson and Paul George being unavailable.

    Edit: So, this isn't a myth. This is a situation where a person is trying to challenge cold hard facts.
    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.

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Roy has to box out instead of go for the rebound because his man will generally beat him to the ball or tip it in.
    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.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      The whole article is great but what I liked the most was the last paragraph:
      Anyone who thinks this writer is "grasping at straws" or whatever should reread this quote. It makes perfect sense.

      We chastise players for padding their stats in the NBA, but don’t praise ones who focus on the fundamentals at the expense of their numbers. In the case of Roy Hibbert, he doesn’t jump after every rebound that comes his way. He could easily, but that wouldn’t necessarily have the same effect. Instead, his focus on boxing out his man — the opposing team’s center — clears the paint and creates space for the rest of his teammates to grab an uncontested rebound and push the ball.

      It doesn’t show up on the stat sheet but it’s just as important.
      The anti-Troy Murphy effect.
      Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 08-21-2014, 06:45 AM.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

        Bah, this article just selectively picks data to try and back up it's point while ignoring other data:

        "if Hibbert’s low rebounding numbers were a problem, the team would’ve suffered. Yet, instead, the team rebounded at a higher rate with Hibbert on the court (they grabbed 52.5 percent of all available rebounds), as apposed to when he was off (51.2 percent)."
        - The obvious reason for this has nothing to do with Hibbert. When Hibbert was on the court he was usually playing with Lance and PG, two of the top rebounding wings in the game.

        Also, it talked about the Pacers being a good rebounding team as a whole, which is also a skewed number. Essentially, we were above average at defensive rebounding and below average at offensive rebounds. The reason we ended up with a good rebound differential is that our opponents shot the ball more times per game than us, allowing the Pacers to grab more defensive rebounds. the Pacers turned the ball over more, and had more free throws, than our opponents on average. If we were that good of a defensive rebounding team, then opposing teams would not have averaged more offensive rebounds per game against the Pacers than we averaged against our opponents. It's simple maths.

        I agree with someone earlier who posted that Hibbert was a much better rebounder the previous two years, but last year he just wasn't good at it, especially for the last 30 games or so and the playoffs.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
          Anyone who thinks this writer is "grasping at straws" or whatever should reread this quote. It makes perfect sense.
          The writer grasping at straws and also writing a sentence that makes sense are two separate ideas. Yes, that sentence makes sense, but it doesn't explain Hibbert's rebounding issues during the 2013-2014 season. The writer tried to use some stats to back up his reasoning, but his statistical use wasn't always logical and avoided the many stats that don't back up his conclusion. The article reads like the author decided Hibbert wasn't a bad rebounder, then researched to try and prove it, as opposed to researching Hibbert's rebounding then drawing a conclusion based on the data.
          Danger Zone

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
            The writer grasping at straws and also writing a sentence that makes sense are two separate ideas. Yes, that sentence makes sense, but it doesn't explain Hibbert's rebounding issues during the 2013-2014 season.
            How does it not explain it? Imagine a player sliding over to challenge shots at the rim, having the shot go over his hands, then having to turn around, find his man, box out, then go after the rebound. Is all that realistic? No, it's not. Which is why Roy often times finds himself out of rebounding position.

            Roy isn't the Ben Wallace type defender/rebounder, where he picks and chooses to come weakside periodically. The entire defensive scheme is set up for him to be on the backside of the play. Good rebounders do their work before the shot goes up. They get themselves into position, usually weakside, so they can go after the ball. Being strongside, and challenging a shot, and then rebounding is extremely difficult for players to do, not to mention players as slow footed as Roy.

            And that's why I brought up team rebounding stats. Which is more important, Roy to stay in position and get more individual rebounds, even though his team makes up for his individual shortcomings, or do you want Roy to stay in constant helpside defense and challenge shots at the rim? You get to pick one or the other. Asking Roy to do both is like asking Mugsy Bogues to grow.

            Is Roy a bad individual rebounder? Sure, although I don't think "bad" is quite the right term. But that's the small picture. Team sports are about the big picture. Players have roles, and Roy's role is to protect the rim, and battle for offensive rebounds. His teammates roles are to crash down on defensive possessions and help rebound. Both Roy and his teammates do their jobs, and do them effectively. In the end, that's all that matters. It's about the team, not Roy's individual numbers.

            If/When, which I totally acknowledge might be this season with both Lance and PG not in the lineup, the Pacers start struggling to rebound, Roy will need to stay home more.
            Last edited by Since86; 08-21-2014, 09:29 AM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

              I think Rogco's point is that Hibbert was statistically a much better rebounder before last season. All those explanations - boxing out, getting out of rebounding position when challenging shots, etc - were all things that Roy did previously when putting up better rebounding numbers.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                People complained about Roy's rebounding then too. The criticism just got much louder when he fell off the face of the Earth in April.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  How does it not explain it?
                  It may or may not explain his rebounding numbers last year. It is a possibility, not a reality. Another possibility is he wasn't very good at rebounding. The quote, by itself, is not an explanation.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Team sports are about the big picture. Players have roles, and Roy's role is to protect the rim, and battle for offensive rebounds. His teammates roles are to crash down on defensive possessions and help rebound.
                  Last year we were 26th in the league in offensive rebounding, and Hibbert had a lower ORB% than Ian Mahimi. And while I agree to a point about big picture and system, Roy is still 7'2" with an enormous wing span, and he should be getting more boards. But I do believe my perception is completely skewered by my memories of March through the end of May. Hibbert was playing great team ball through February and if I remember was rebounding pretty well too. I really hope we see a rejuvenated Roy with the leaving of Lance and loss of PG.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    It may or may not explain his rebounding numbers last year. It is a possibility, not a reality. Another possibility is he wasn't very good at rebounding. The quote, by itself, is not an explanation.
                    I'm just saying that it's not two seperate ideas. Roy's defensive role directly plays into why Roy is often times out of rebounding position. Roy is a positional rebounder.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      "if Hibbert’s low rebounding numbers were a problem, the team would’ve suffered. Yet, instead, the team rebounded at a higher rate with Hibbert on the court (they grabbed 52.5 percent of all available rebounds), as apposed to when he was off (51.2 percent)."
                      - The obvious reason for this has nothing to do with Hibbert. When Hibbert was on the court he was usually playing with Lance and PG, two of the top rebounding wings in the game.
                      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.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Well, actually it's probably biology...

                        In any event, I'm not asking for Dennis Rodman. I would only hope the man could stay on his feet 50% of the time and not get outmuscled by guys half his size...or out hustled by less than 50% of his competition. If you're a big man, you should be playing big. If not, you better get on the glass.
                        Physics is the study of motion, so yeah, physics

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                          Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                          Physics is the study of motion, so yeah, physics
                          Or .......... it's "1. a medicine that purges; laxative."

                          Draw your own comparisons.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                            Thank you Mrs. Hibbert.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                              Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                              But I do believe my perception is completely skewered by my memories of March through the end of May.
                              I'll give you props for acknowledging that. The perception of a lot of people is completely skewered by those awful March-May memories but you are one of the few that openly acknowledges it.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.
                                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/
                                Danger Zone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X