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

True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

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

  • #16
    Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    The example above was showing, in the clearest way possible, that DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS ARE NOT EXTRA POSSESSIONS.
    Everything in your argument is negated by this comment. Not because it's wrong per se' but because it overlooks so so much more. If team A takes a bad shot and wastes a possession and Team B takes off to the races to hit a layup or dunk (a very very high percentage shot) while Team A's players try to scramble to defend (and bad/quick shots tend to lead to players in bad positions to defend) then it might not be an 'extra' possession but it can be a high FG percentage possession for the opposition. Also, this is where 'and 1's' occur as well.

    So I guess you can argue it's not 'extra' possessions but it sure is opposition possessions when your team wasted their own possession and came up empty....
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

      Listen folks the pushback is coming from everyone who is trying to argue FG% tells us something and TS% doesn't.

      The reasoning behind this, is probably because those particular people have placed a faith in the traditional FG% statistic. They subsequently judge players off of that statistic. (no matter how much faith they put in the statistic, they do put SOME faith in that statistic.)

      They want to argue that guy like Jrue Holliday is more efficient than George Hill, and Lance Stephenson is more efficient than Danny Granger.

      So the argument? Well, Danny only shoots 42% so because he's shooting that low of a percentage, even if he is scoring more points, it doesn't matter because he has more misses, thus more shots for the opponent. This is stupid. I made a long example showing that if you miss shots you do not create extra possessions for the opponent. So in the end, the only thing that really matters is scoring points. Whether it is from the three. Or from freethrows. Or jumpers. Who cares. Score points.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        wintermute got what I was saying.

        I don't hate stats... But I do hate meaningless stats that are used (misused) in meaningless ways that can be better measured with traditional stats and your eyeballs (and the scoreboard).
        Actually, I don't really understand people who think "traditional" stats are somehow better. I just think mattie is misguided with his explanation.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

          Originally posted by mattie View Post
          How is it meaningless to measure if a player is efficient or not?
          Because people need to watch the game. You're trying to measure something that potentially ignores the bigger picture. The stat is meaningless because watching the game will tell you what you need to know.... regardless of what that lone stat says.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            Yes, except you used most of your post to explain how shooting 2's and 3's with the same efficiency results in the team shooting 3's winning. If everyone misunderstands you, perhaps you need to work on your message delivery?

            For example, you could have used your post to show 2 guys with the same (or different) FG%, one scoring with a mix of 2's, 3's and FT's, the other solely with 2's, count the possessions, count the points, and showed the difference in efficiency with TS%.



            It looks like you're more interested in arguing this point than the other, even if, as you say, there may not be an advantage at all.
            I made a long post. As long as you take the time to follow my thought process, you will understand what I'm saying. If you would like to simply pick a part my post, you can do that as well. I am aware of this. But I created this post for those willing to learn, so they can understand this post. Because there are people, like Bball who are confused. I can try to explain it a thousand different ways, but until he's willing to give up the belief he's desperately clinging to, he'll never learn ****.

            Like I've said so many times, there are people that wrongly think that accounting for 3's in this particular stat renders the statistic useless. They are wrong. I gave an example to illustrate that. My example applied in any other circumstance is stupid as ****. Obviously. But thanks for pointing it out.
            Last edited by mattie; 11-05-2013, 01:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

              I have a feeling- wintermute clearly understands what the statistic is showing, but would rather pick a part my post. While Bball just doesn't understand it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                I made a long post. As long as you take the time to follow my thought process, you will understand what I'm saying. If you would like to simply pick a part my post, you can do that as well. I am aware of this. But I created this post for those willing to learn, so they can understand this post. Because there are people, like Bball who are confused. I can try to explain it a thousand different ways, but until he's willing to give up the belief he's desperately clinging to, he'll never learn ****.
                Either you're wrong and misusing the stat or explaining it terribly because there is no value in the stat as you're explaining it. You might argue semantics or syntax about not creating extra possessions but the stat can't defend bad shots and wasted possessions or the value of transition buckets and FT's against your team.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  I have a feeling- wintermute clearly understands what the statistic is showing, but would rather pick a part my post. While Bball just doesn't understand it.
                  As a rule, I think advanced stats aren't in high regard on this forum, so I think pushing out a message like "more misses is somehow better" would make the rep of advanced stats even worse. Maybe that wasn't your main message but it was certainly a prominent part. I'm sorry that you feel that I am attacking you personally.

                  In previous interactions, I think Bball has a fairly good grasp of this stuff, he just doesn't see the value in them. (Which boggles me even more, but them's the breaks.)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    Actually, I don't really understand people who think "traditional" stats are somehow better. I just think mattie is misguided with his explanation.
                    It doesn't mean he's not right though. I disagree that missing your 3 point shots is a postive, but I also strongly believe that 3 pt shots taken in the flow of the offense don't hurt you. The major argument that "so-called efficient" scorers who shoot lots of 3 pointers is that they provide more long defensive rebound attempts which can spark fast breaks. But fast break points are an indication of the committment to transition defense, not to how often they shoot 3's. The Knicks shot the most 3's last season but allowed the 7th fewest fast break points.

                    Additionally, the amount of 3's taken per game were between 13.5 and 28.9 3PT FGA, while the amount of fast break points allowed only varied from between 10.1 and 16.7 per game for all NBA teams.

                    If you have a fairly pedestrian FG%, but you both shoot the 3 and get to the free throw line with volume and convert both at an above average rate, you are going to be an efficient scorer. It doesn't say that you should be taking 50 shots a game, but it does say that for the shots you did take you were efficient.
                    Last edited by aamcguy; 11-05-2013, 01:47 PM.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      As a rule, I think advanced stats aren't in high regard on this forum, so I think pushing out a message like "more misses is somehow better" would make the rep of advanced stats even worse. Maybe that wasn't your main message but it was certainly a prominent part. I'm sorry that you feel that I am attacking you personally.

                      In previous interactions, I think Bball has a fairly good grasp of this stuff, he just doesn't see the value in them. (Which boggles me even more, but them's the breaks.)
                      I don't think you're attacking me. I'm just extremely frustrated, that from all of that the only thing you got was that I was trying to argue "misses are a good thing."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                        mattie, I agree with you. But you should play nice with wintermute. He is not baiting, he just disagrees.

                        Guys with a high TS% are guys you want to get the ball to, if you are trying to generate points. It can be overdone, of course. Kobe, I believe, has a good TS%, but much of it is his being a black hole. A three can be a wasted possession, it can be a bad shot, but it doesn't have to be. An open 3 by a guy that shoots as well as Danny does is a very good shot. A post up by a guy like Danny that results in FT's is a good play. Both of these generate positive TS% results.

                        It is perhaps important to note that TS% shows that made 3's are better than made 2's. And that missed 3's are not better than made 2's. That 'and 1's' are a good thing. That getting fouled and getting FT's is good. All of these things are things coaches like, n'est pas?

                        One more question. IIRC, the rebounds from 3's are easier for the offense to rebound than from 2. The defense walls out the offense near the basket, but the long rebound makes it past the wall and into the area where the offensive players can get to it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Because people need to watch the game. You're trying to measure something that potentially ignores the bigger picture. The stat is meaningless because watching the game will tell you what you need to know.... regardless of what that lone stat says.
                          Stats quantify what the eye sees. Stats aren't misleading. They can be misrepresented and misinterrpreted, but they're not misleading.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                            I think the thread title should have been more something like, "Why TS% really shows...." (whatever it is that is being argued - I still haven't really figured it out)
                            I came in here not knowing what TS% was, and looking for an explanation.
                            I found a much better and precise explanation on wikipedia. It seems like a nice stat. Obviously there are nuances to consider with any stat, but it's still a nice stat in that it does SOMETHING to try to draw some comparisons between different types of shooters.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              Are long rebounds leading to transition buckets the fly in the ointment for TS%? Or has there been a metric to debunk that long shots lead to long rebounds and more opportunities for fast break points, which are typically the highest percentage shots you can take? Seems to me that the consensus is that a shot at the rim is the best shot you can take. A three pointer is the second best shot you can take, and a long jumper is the worst shot you can take, with limited exceptions for elite jumpshooters like Jarrett Jack and a circa-2004 Rip Hamilton. Has anyone tried to corrolate the distance at which teams shoot vs. the amount of fast break points they give up? I know there's going to be a lot of statistical noise in the sample, as some teams are more athletic, and so are better at getting back on defense than other teams. I just thought it would be an interesting exercise to determine if there's any truth to the argument that the 3 is a bad shot because a miss leads to a fast break.
                              Well, we can try to correlate opponent fast-break PPG with 3 pointers attempted per game if we want so.

                              Opponent fast break PPG -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...ate=2013-06-20

                              3 pointers attempted per game -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...ate=2013-06-20

                              The team that allowed the fewest opponent fast break PPG was us, the Pacers. Where did we rank in 3 pointers attempted per game? We were right at the middle at #16.

                              The team that allowed the most opponent fast break PPG was Sacramento. Where did it rank in 3 pointers attempted? #10.

                              Which was the team that attempted the fewest 3 pointers last year? It was Memphis by a big margin (hence my inside-inside comments). Where did Memphis rank in opponent fast break PPG? They were tied at #8 along with Denver and the LA Clippers.

                              Which was the team that attempted the most 3 pointers last year? It was Houston. Where did Houston rank in opponent fast break PPG? They were at #25.

                              New York was #2 in most 3 pointers attempted last year. Where did they rank in opponent fast break PPG? They were #4.

                              Miami was #2 in opponent fast break PPG last year. Where did they rank in 3 pointers attempted? They were #6.

                              So, in the cases of Miami, New York and Indiana there was no correlation at all. In the cases of Memphis and Sacramento there was some correlation. In the case of Houston it seems to be a significant correlation.

                              All in all, it seems to vary. There are examples that indicate that there is no correlation at all and there are other examples that indicate that there is some correlation. We would probably need to look back into several years of these two statistical categories in order to make an educated guess on this subject.

                              It's true that long-range shots generally produce more long rebounds than close-range shots. That's just physics. It's also true that those long rebounds can lead to fast breaks for the defensive team. However, those same long rebounds are easier to be offensively rebounded exactly because they are rebounded away from the rim and thus they ignore the defense's box outs. That's why I don't think that a consensus can exist in this subject. You just cannot predict accurately enough where the long rebound will land so it's almost a coin toss.

                              It's similar with the argument of "crashing the boards vs transition defense", imo. There are more than one variables in it.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                                Yes, in a vacuum where every parameter of the original post is true, JOB should have been a visionary who should have been able to win championships here due to our volume of 3pt attempts and poor shooting percentage. Stan Van Gundy evolved into a coach who shared this vision and had far better personnel for this strategy could not win the title with it, and were not nearly as successful in the playoffs as many thought they should be.

                                There is one portion of game flow that cannot be emphasized enough. While it is true that defensive rebounds after missed shots do not lead to extra possessions for the teams on defense, it DOES have another impact which is even more difficult to measure. The missed 3 is more likely to be damaging due to the likelihood that opposing teams will gain possession of the ball more quickly and with a higher likelihood of getting out in transition for better quality looks at the other end due to the 3pt team's defense not being able to fully get back.

                                It was no accident that JOB screamed himself horse with his nearly maniacal "Push it! Push It!" when the Pacers were on offense. He wanted the Pacers to be able to counter the pace and possession quality advantage that opposing teams gained from the Pacers missed 3's. In turn, this led to poor quality shots due to having less ball and player movement and player fatigue causing players to both lose lift on their shots and having less energy to both get back AND play effective D and get defensive boards. It likely also led to more fouling on defense due to fatigue and lack of correct defensive positioning more frequently.

                                While not having the weakness of "confirmation bias" (tendency to pay attention to and remember that which supports our own beliefs whether those beliefs accurately reflect reality or not), statistics and the subsequent metrics that they feed are necessarily flawed due to the inability to both measure every single variable of a given situation, then determining whether each variable is dependent or independent in every single possible causal relationship system. Basketball, broken down to these terms, is an incredibly complex and rapidly changing system with both physical and mental components that would need to be perfectly accounted for to be able to fully rely on a given metric. Yes, the more statistics and subsequent metrics which are derived from them, the better overall picture of reality you MIGHT get, but not always. Metrics are shaped by what? Confirmation Bias. They are an attempt to summarize observations and confirm assumptions, thereby reducing the need to gather more information and the overall intellectual analysis required to come up with a valid conclusion regarding outcomes which are more likely to be repeated in similar circumstances in the future.

                                Long story short - I agree with Bball, and I love the Mckey Fan quote "Intuition over Integers". The human mind is a wonderful thing!
                                Last edited by Brad8888; 11-05-2013, 02:43 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X