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

The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

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

  • #31
    Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    Guys, the Pistons lost Bobby "Trip-Dub" Sura in that trade!
    Hey, Bobby Sura is the man. He comes from the mean streets of Wilkes-Barre PA. G.A.R. was unbeatable when he was running things. I'm still pissed at Stern taking away that last triple double. Next thing I know you're gonna be talking trash about Gerry McNamara.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      ...and josh smith. But hey, who's counting....It was the most lopsided trade ever, right?

      Kinda like the idiots that still whine over the pau gasol trde, while overlooking the fact Memphis got Marc gasol....


      Tony Allen ended up being the other draft pick the Pistons traded away in that trade. He turned out all right, especially considering he was the 25th pick in the draft. The Pistons still won the deal, but still.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        It was 25 games, plus 23 playoff games.

        Indeed. Would have been nice to see that group for the full 82 games, but they were dominant in the stretch that counted. We gutted our depth when we allowed Corliss, mike James and okur to leave in the summer. They were still very good but not the same.

        I always compare the 04 pistons to the 00 Baltimore ravens. Very good defensively for a long time, but that one season they were the best ever.

        Holding 5 straight teams under 70 points might never be duplicated again. On the season they held 8 teams under 70 after the sheed trade. 12 teams failed to reach 80. They did not allow 100 points once, and the only game they gave up 100 in the playoffs came in triple overtime. They held 11 of 23 playoff opponents under 80, and six of them didn't break 70.
        They played a total of 48 games with that lineup then. But you have to look at that in context. They played 7 games against a pacers team that wasn't offensively inclined. And 5 against a completely dysfunctional Lakers team. And as I recall they also got to play the Nets 7 games and the nets had their own troubles scoring the basketball.

        Thats a disproportionate amount of games against struggling teams, or bad offensive teams.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
          They played a total of 48 games with that lineup then. But you have to look at that in context. They played 7 games against a pacers team that wasn't offensively inclined. And 5 against a completely dysfunctional Lakers team. And as I recall they also got to play the Nets 7 games and the nets had their own troubles scoring the basketball.

          Thats a disproportionate amount of games against struggling teams, or bad offensive teams.
          Funny how every team we played was either dysfunctional or just offensively inept after we ground them into dust....

          We get that a lot.
          Last edited by Kstat; 01-12-2013, 11:49 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

            That Pistons team was very good. I am sad as a Pacers fan that we got injured in that series. I think it would have gone 7 otherwise, but as we know that P's squad was fool's gold anyway.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

              I think this list kind of lends credence to my opinion is that it is better to compare a teams relative to how good their contemporaries than on pure statistics alone, as there are so many variables that make each season unique and could give teams from one season an advantage over teams from another season statistically. I have a hard time believing that all of the best defensive teams played only in 98-99 or 03-04.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                I understand 98-99 was a lockout year, but is there something that makes 03-04 special?
                "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                  Originally posted by cgg View Post
                  I understand 98-99 was a lockout year, but is there something that makes 03-04 special?
                  I have no idea, but there must have been something.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                    98-99 and 03-04 both have noticeably lower average FG% league wide than every year since and very similar avg fg%.
                    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                      Originally posted by cgg View Post
                      98-99 and 03-04 both have noticeably lower average FG% league wide than every year since and very similar avg fg%.
                      I find it hard to believe that everyone's defense just suddenly improved greatly for one season, then fell off without there being some kind of rule change or something that would cause it.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                        98-99:.437
                        03-04:.439
                        12-13:.447
                        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                          http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=NBA_Rules_History_1980-Present
                          2003-04


                          • For a 20-Second Timeout, the official shall instruct the timer to record the 20 seconds and to inform him when the time has expired.
                          • If a team calls a 20-second timeout because one of its players is injured and, at the expiration of the 20-second timeout limit, play is unable to resume due to that player's injury, a full timeout will be charged to that team and 20-second timeout returned.
                          • The 24-second clock shall remain the same as when play was interrupted or reset to 5 seconds, whichever is greater, any time on jump balls retained by the offensive team as the result of a held ball caused by the defense.

                          2004-05

                          • New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

                          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            Wasn't 98-99 a lockout season too? It's interesting that everyone on that list is either the 98-99 season or the 03-04 season, with the exception of us and a 97-98 Spurs season. Damn good company. I don't suspect we will hold that number all season, but it shows we really do have an elite defensive team.
                            Here's the thing about that. The Spurs have 97-98, but in the other cases first place was not only not far ahead of 2nd, but not far ahead of 3rd either. In the case of the Pacers this season they are WAY out in front of everyone else. It's not an "era" thing or rules of the year or whatever where you see many teams bunched together at the top. In the lockout season it was not only still a defensive friendly era, but many people thought that the shooting was rusty when the lockout ended.


                            Edit - Thanks CGG, you already addressed it. I had only read page 1 when I posted. The Pacers might be more ahead of the mean than the teams from those other seasons.

                            Of course a person could say "well those other teams dropped the mean down", so I looked at the median instead just to accommodate the idea that a few elite teams pulled the league average down.

                            97-98: mean .450, median .448 - T'Wolves DEF FG% with 14 teams higher, 14 teams lower
                            98-99: mean .437, median .439 - The Raps, 14 teams above them and 14 below.
                            03-04: mean .439, median .437 - Cavs, 14 above, 14 below
                            12-13: mean .447, median .448 - ORL/DAL, you can group 15 teams above and 15 below this line if you put ORL in one and DAL in the other

                            So for the most part the middle of the road defense is about the same as the league average, just a tick up or down. Having several elite teams did help the average in 98-99 but wasn't enough to overcome the impact of having some very bad defenses pulling up the average in 03-04.

                            Ratio to the MEDIAN of that season:

                            1. San Antonio Spurs 1998-99 .439/.402 = 1.092 (1 point to 2nd, 9 points to 3rd, both on this list)
                            2. New York Knicks 1998-99 .439/.403 = 1.089
                            3. San Antonio Spurs 2003-04 .437/.409 = 1.068 (3 points to 2nd, 4 points to 3rd, both on this list)
                            4. Miami Heat 1998-99 .439/.411 = 1.068
                            5. San Antonio Spurs 1997-98 .448/.411 = 1.090 (and 2nd was 17 points behind at 428)
                            6. Indiana Pacers 2012-13 .448/.412 = 1.087 (2nd is 17 points behind at 429)
                            7. Houston Rockets 2003-04 .437/.412 = 1.061
                            7. Detroit Pistons 2003-04 .437/.413 = 1.058

                            This puts the 97-98 Spurs in 2nd in terms of comparison to the middle of the road defense that season. Then the Knicks and then the current Pacers. And as I mentioned already, you see a massive gulf between 1st and 2nd with the Pacers and with the 97-98 Spurs.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-13-2013, 02:26 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                              To expand further, this list should have 10 teams, not 8, because two other teams are TIED WITH DETROIT. The 1998-99 Utah Jazz and Atlanta Hawks. Meaning that 5 of the top 10 FG% defenses are from that same season, hmmmmm. Definitely shows that shooting after the lockout was not good. 98-99 Portland and GSW also show up in the top 20.


                              Did Yao "free up" Stevie Franchise to defend the perimeter? F*** no! Turns out that Rockets team is an anomaly because they were 3rd WORST in 3P% allowed. So sure, in the paint you had trouble. But the Rockets let teams bomb away from the outside at will.


                              Along those lines, I looked into eFG% since the Pacers are leading in Opp 3P% this season too. The first thing I found is that you have to eliminate non-3pt era teams obviously because they didn't take that hit for letting a guy make a long outside shot.
                              So modifying the search to only allow teams that had at least 100 3PA against them (basically the 3pt era) we get the top eFG% teams:

                              98-99 SAS .423
                              03-04 SAS .433
                              98-99 NYK .434
                              98-99 ATL .437
                              97-98 SAS .437
                              98-99 MIA .439
                              03-04 DET .441
                              98-99 UTH .441

                              99-00 LAL .443
                              12-13 IND .443
                              00-01 SAS .444


                              Every team except the ones in bold are from the 98-99 or 03-04 seasons, with 5 of the top 8 coming from the notorious 98-99 season. The 03-04 and 98-99 champs are both represented on this list, as are the 99-00 and 00-01 champs. The only team on the list not from a season in which the champ is also on the list (or was the champ) is the 97-98 Spurs who lost to the Jazz. The Jazz were only 9th in Opp FG% but were first in team FG% with a staggering .490 make rate. They had the #1 record and shot it better than the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and the Payton Sonics, as well as the killer shooting Pacers (the Bulls weren't that great a FG% team that year).

                              For the most part, however, the defensive champ types aren't elite offenses, but they are above average. That's the thing that hurts Indiana. They need to get that FG% up toward .440 if they want a title run, or so it would seem by the statistics. However a 44% for the season would also imply something of a 56-60 win pace, far better than where they've been so far. Of course to get the average up to that level they'd have to be shooting it even better than 44%, and with their defense that would imply a ton of wins the rest of the way, putting 60 wins on the map.

                              It seems unlikely that this happens, which in turn means that while they are an elite defensive team they simply don't have the offense to be a title winner and/or 60 game winner. Of course things have been improving and Danny is yet to return, so anything is possible.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                                Seth, I'd thank you again if you could simply "dumb down" your posts for people like me that have a low basketball IQ.

                                I'm guessing that you're saying that the current Pacers Team is a good defensive Team when compared to the rest of the Teams in the same season while comparing us to the other defensive juggernauts of the past ( when comparing them to their respective Teams in the same year ) ?
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X