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

Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
    Another question (this one based on my ignorance of the stats). How is usage rate calculated, and does it take into account a players offensive rebounds? IE West and especially Hibbert ORebs took a significant dive between the two years, which is most likely the cause of a significant percentage of the decrease in shot attempts (and potentially usage rate, especially for Hibbert).
    I'll quote Basketball Reference on this. Here's their definition and formula:

    Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.
    In other words, it only takes into account FGA, FTA and Turnovers. Of course, if a player grabs an offensive rebound and then attempts a FGA or earn FTAs due to it or even turns it over then those resulted actions will raise his usage. On the other hand, if a player grabs an offensive rebound and passes it outside to someone else then his usage will not be affected.

    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
    And while West and Hibbbert both had lower usage rates last year, the team was also a better team last year for 3 1/2 months. What were the big's usage rate breakdown by month?
    That's easy to see.

    Here are West's splits per B-R -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

    Here are Hibbert's splits per B-R -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

    I'll also list each one's usage by month.

    David West:

    October: 25.5%
    November: 20.1%
    December: 23.5%
    January: 21.7%
    February: 22%
    March: 22.5%
    April: 21.1%

    Roy Hibbert:
    October: 18.4%
    November: 21.1%
    December: 19.9%
    January: 20%
    February: 17.2%
    March: 18.9%
    April: 20%

    Let's take a look at the splits for the rest of our team as well.

    Paul George's splits are here -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

    Lance Stephenson's splits are here -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

    George Hill's splits are here -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...01/splits/2014
    Last edited by Nuntius; 07-19-2014, 01:28 PM.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      I'll quote Basketball Reference on this. Here's their definition and formula:



      In other words, it only takes into account FGA, FTA and Turnovers. Of course, if a player grabs an offensive rebound and then attempts a FGA or earn FTAs due to it or even turns it over then those resulted actions will raise his usage. On the other hand, if a player grabs an offensive rebound and passes it outside to someone else then his usage will not be affected.



      That's easy to see.

      Here are West's splits per B-R -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

      Here are Hibbert's splits per B-R -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

      I'll also list each one's usage by month.

      David West:

      October: 25.5%
      November: 20.1%
      December: 23.5%
      January: 21.7%
      February: 22%
      March: 22.5%
      April: 21.1%

      Roy Hibbert:
      October: 18.4%
      November: 21.1%
      December: 19.9%
      January: 20%
      February: 17.2%
      March: 18.9%
      April: 20%

      Let's take a look at the splits for the rest of our team as well.

      Paul George's splits are here -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

      Lance Stephenson's splits are here -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

      George Hill's splits are here -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...01/splits/2014
      Thanks for that. Honestly, I can't really see any trend in terms of usage and the teams performance.
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        Thanks for that. Honestly, I can't really see any trend in terms of usage and the teams performance.
        Actually, the biggest trend I can see is that Paul George's True Shooting Percentage took a big dive after December and Roy's rebounding decreased as the season went on.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
          Thanks for that. Honestly, I can't really see any trend in terms of usage and the teams performance.
          The issue was never usage or any individual stat. It was chemistry.

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
            Actually, the biggest trend I can see is that Paul George's True Shooting Percentage took a big dive after December and Roy's rebounding decreased as the season went on.

            Oh, and Orlando Johnson's minutes tanked after December from about 10 mpg to 2!
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

              Originally posted by Rogco View Post
              Thanks for that. Honestly, I can't really see any trend in terms of usage and the teams performance.
              The only trend that I can see is in Hibbert's and Hill's Usage rates.

              This is Hill's list, by the way:

              October: 20.9%
              November: 19.4%
              December: 14.3%
              January: 12.8%
              February: 15.6%
              March: 13.9%
              April: 11.7%

              Both Hill and Hibbert had a higher usage rate in November when the team was playing amazing basketball. Both of them had significantly lower usage in 2014 when the team wasn't as good as it was in late 2013. March was the second lowest month in terms of usage for both of them (October and April combine for only 9 games so I don't really count them).
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                Originally posted by cgg View Post
                Lance is the only starter that has a negative on court minus off court value for offensive rebound or total rebound percentage. PG has the highest for both.
                Could it be because he was playing a lot more with the backups than any of the starters? He led the league as a SG on the boards...and led the Pacer team on the boards...yet he is the rebounding problem? Really?

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Could it be because he was playing a lot more with the backups than any of the starters? He led the league as a SG on the boards...and led the Pacer team on the boards...yet he is the rebounding problem? Really?
                  He didn't say we had a rebounding problem? We were 3rd in the league in rebounding differential. He was just pointing out that the loss of Lance shouldn't hurt our team rebounding. In fact we led the league in rebounding differential by a wide margin two years ago when Roy led our team in rebounding.
                  Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-19-2014, 01:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    He didn't say we had a rebounding problem? We were 3rd in the league in rebounding differential. He was just pointing out that the loss of Lance shouldn't hurt our team rebounding
                    So, you lose your leading rebounder and don't take a step back? The issue is looking at on-court vs. off court percentages and making conclusions from that. It does not factor in a critical component: who that particular player spent his time on the court with. This is not randomized. Vogel has a scheme for substitutions. What if he spent a lot of minutes with the backups and carried them on the boards? That's just one issue with using that stat that makes the conclusion fall apart.

                    Edit: It would help if people stopped trying to make these types of conclusions. No offense, but most people on this board don't have a thorough enough understanding of statistics.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      So, you lose your leading rebounder and don't take a step back? The issue is looking at on-court vs. off court percentages and making conclusions from that. It does not factor in a critical component: who that particular player spent his time on the court with. This is not randomized. Vogel has a scheme for substitutions. What if he spent a lot of minutes with the backups and carried them on the boards? That's just one issue with using that stat that makes the conclusion fall apart.

                      Edit: It would help if people stopped trying to make these types of conclusions. No offense, but most people on this board don't have a thorough enough understanding of statistics.
                      We rebounded better by a good margin as a team the previous year when Lance was 4th on yhe team in rebounds? How does that not show that we wouldn't take a step back?

                      Edit: Our system combined with our defense lends itself to higher than normal rebounding numbers for our wings. This has been the case since Vogel took over. Nobody said Lance wasn't a good rebounder, just that losing him wont affect our teams ability to rebound.
                      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-19-2014, 02:07 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        Roy has a decent midrange jumphot. I just don't want him to demand post touches when he isn't holding good position. I am tired of the falling hook shot outside the paint. I am just tired of Roy blaming others, when he is getting outworked down low. The whining is the worst part. Earn your touches.
                        I'd say that the fact that this team always performs better when our bigs get more touches has earned them that right. The decline didn't start when the ball went to our bigs consistently. It started when our wings took over the offense. That's when our chemistry turned to crap and everything started going downhill.

                        As for the "blaming others" and "whining" parts of your post, I only have one thing to say. I'm sick and tired of talking about it.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                          Originally posted by dohman View Post
                          Does anyone think Lance signed for shorter time to take advantage of the new nba TV contract coming up here in a few years? Its expected to almost double player salaries.
                          I think that he signed for the same reason that everyone else did....he's betting that he will do much better in the next 2+ years and will therefore get out onto the Free Agent Market earlier and secure a bigger contract later.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Could it be because he was playing a lot more with the backups than any of the starters? He led the league as a SG on the boards...and led the Pacer team on the boards...yet he is the rebounding problem? Really?
                            I don't really have full conclusions at this point. I'm mostly looking for anything that is different in wins and losses, or that is different from last year.

                            But...

                            Hibbert's 5 best OR% 3 man unit combo did not have Lance. His worst had Lance.

                            Lance's 5 best OR% 3 man combo did not have Roy. His worst had Roy.

                            Both of their best 2 man combos were with Granger.

                            Our ten best 5 man units in OR% did not have both Roy AND Lance. They were both in good units, but not together.

                            Our starting lineup was our 16th best unit for OR%.

                            None of this was true last year. The most significant difference that I can find is Lance's usage rate.

                            This makes me suspect that where Hibbert needs to be and where Lance needs to be conflict with each other. I'd have to rewatch games that look like they support and disprove this to have a stronger conclusion.
                            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              So, you lose your leading rebounder and don't take a step back? The issue is looking at on-court vs. off court percentages and making conclusions from that. It does not factor in a critical component: who that particular player spent his time on the court with. This is not randomized. Vogel has a scheme for substitutions. What if he spent a lot of minutes with the backups and carried them on the boards? That's just one issue with using that stat that makes the conclusion fall apart.

                              Edit: It would help if people stopped trying to make these types of conclusions. No offense, but most people on this board don't have a thorough enough understanding of statistics.
                              I looked at all of that. Thanks for your thoughts though!
                              "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                We rebounded better by a good margin as a team the previous year when Lance was 4th on yhe team in rebounds? How does that not show that we wouldn't take a step back?

                                Edit: Our system combined with our defense lends itself to higher than normal rebounding numbers for our wings. This has been the case since Vogel took over. Nobody said Lance wasn't a good rebounder, just that losing him wont affect our teams ability to rebound.
                                It was a different year. Lance was not as good. Roy rebounded MUCH better and so did West. Hibbert was an all-star and West was a year younger. Maybe Roy's head was right last year, but not this year. Maybe West is slowing down. Maybe Lance picked up the slack and West slows down more...then we are toast on the boards. I'm sorry but there are very few situations where I've not seen an obvious hole in logic based on stats...that could be explained pretty easily.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X