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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
    Is there a RPM stat? I'm familiar with RPG. An increase in RPG doesn't always translate to an increase in REB per/36 because of the influence of minutes.

    A player can have a higher RPG, yet a lower per/36.

    Take a player who averages 9 RPG in 20 MPG. Then another player, or the same player in a different season, puts up 11 RPG in 28 MPG.

    9 in 20 translates to 16.2 per 36. 11 in 28 translates to 14.1 per 36. If comparing a single player's multiple seasons, which is the better season? If comparing two players, who's the better rebounder? Per 36 doesn't answer these questions very well.

    I'm all for exploring advanced stats, but this is why I never put much stock into per 36 numbers, because I've never heard of a basketball game ending after three quarters. To me, it feels like a stat invented to inflate the values of players who play limited minutes, for whatever reason, be it fitness/health, foul trouble, etc. Per 36 will make Anthony Randolph draw Magic Johnson comparisons if you let it. It's just not very realistic. If it were realistic, and therefore a valuable stat, then player X should be able to consistently average his per 36 stats if given those 36 minutes of playing time. More often than not, the player can't play 36 minutes and/or when he does play 36 minutes, his averages are nowhere near the predicted per 36 numbers.
    Using it to compare players who are obviously not on the same level, and thus get drastically different minutes is not the proper way to use Per36. Per36 is best used when comparing players of similar skill level who are not playing an equal amount of minutes.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Using it to compare players who are obviously not on the same level, and thus get drastically different minutes is not the proper way to use Per36. Per36 is best used when comparing players of similar skill level who are not playing an equal amount of minutes.
      Or another way to look at it... You could have a starter... let's say, um... Roy Hibbert! who plays lower minutes than the average starter, and you'd like to put his numbers in perspective compared to other starters that play his position. Sooooooo. You'd use per 36!

      Otherwise known as: Duh.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Per36 doesn't inflate numbers, it extrapolates per minute numbers to a standardized value.

        Per game is just as arbitrary a unit as per minute btw, only is far less accurate. For example, nobody would argue Reggie Evans has ever been an average or below average rebounder even though he's had 4 seasons averaging under 5 RPG. It's understood the drop is due to his minutes drop.

        The fact that you have to counter per36 with actual minutes played to understand fully what's going on doesn't invalidate it, because you have to do the same thing with per game statistics.
        Last edited by aamcguy; 02-06-2015, 10:24 AM.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          Per36 doesn't inflate numbers, it extrapolates per minute numbers to a standardized value.

          Per game is just as arbitrary a unit as per minute btw, only is far less accurate. For example, nobody would argue Reggie Evans has ever been an average or below average rebounder even though he's had 4 seasons averaging under 5 RPG. It's understood the drop is due to his minutes drop.

          The fact that you have to counter per36 with actual minutes played to understand fully what's going on doesn't invalidate it, because you have to do the same thing with per game statistics.
          That's right but it goes further. One player who may be very productive in 25 mpg might be needed by his team to be on the floor 30 or more minutes. While he may average more rebounds, points, etc., his per 36 may drop. Another player may see no change because his endurance is better. Player A may perform better than Player B if they both only play 25 mpg...but the opposite might be true if they play 35 mpg. Players and how teams use them matter as well. A player on a fast break team might perform much better on a team with a slower pace. It just goes on and on why the per 36, while accurate in a vacuum, has serious limits when used to compare or make conclusions in the real world. If you aren't doing those things, you have to start to question the usefulness of the stat.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
            ... if you look at per 36 on http://www.basketball-reference.com/...hibbero01.html you will see that 3 of the last 4 years are remarkably consistent at a little over 10 per game, the outlier, conveniently, is last season, the season of which he whom may not be named was accused of stealing rebounds. If watching it happen in game right before your very eyes was not enough to see that he was indeed coming in from the three point line and ripping the ball out of the air for no reason, then perhaps pairing that with these statistics will...


            It's okay, you're allowed to say Paul George's name.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Lance's month of Jan.

              Month October 1 1 40 3 12 0 2 1 2 3 13 8 0 0 2 4 7 .250 .000 .500 .272 16.0 83 111 +5.0 39.9 7.0 13.0 8.0
              November 17 17 558 66 176 7 36 26 40 18 125 90 15 3 43 38 165 .375 .194 .650 .426 19.9 88 108 -8.1 32.8 9.7 7.4 5.3
              December 7 7 221 38 89 1 15 6 10 5 33 22 4 0 12 15 83 .427 .067 .600 .444 22.4 88 111 -11.4 31.6 11.9 4.7 3.1
              January 8 0 192 22 68 1 10 8 18 3 28 47 5 2 21 26 53 .324 .100 .444 .349 22.5 74 96 -3.5 24.0 6.6 3.5 5.9
              February 1 0 23 4 8 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 2 8 .500 .000 .500 23.1 74 97 -30.8 23.2 8.0 3.0 2.0
              Worst free agency decision a player has ever made.
              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Lance's month of Jan.

                Month October 1 1 40 3 12 0 2 1 2 3 13 8 0 0 2 4 7 .250 .000 .500 .272 16.0 83 111 +5.0 39.9 7.0 13.0 8.0
                November 17 17 558 66 176 7 36 26 40 18 125 90 15 3 43 38 165 .375 .194 .650 .426 19.9 88 108 -8.1 32.8 9.7 7.4 5.3
                December 7 7 221 38 89 1 15 6 10 5 33 22 4 0 12 15 83 .427 .067 .600 .444 22.4 88 111 -11.4 31.6 11.9 4.7 3.1
                January 8 0 192 22 68 1 10 8 18 3 28 47 5 2 21 26 53 .324 .100 .444 .349 22.5 74 96 -3.5 24.0 6.6 3.5 5.9
                February 1 0 23 4 8 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 2 8 .500 .000 .500 23.1 74 97 -30.8 23.2 8.0 3.0 2.0
                Interesting to see he has a higher usage rate as the months go by, but lower performance. So you it's becoming hard to make the argument, Lance isn't getting the ball in his hands.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by immortality View Post
                  Interesting to see he has a higher usage rate as the months go by, but lower performance. So you it's becoming hard to make the argument, Lance isn't getting the ball in his hands.
                  Kemba hasn't been playing so you can't blame him for "ball hogging" anymore either.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    I've watched most Hornets games this year and I have no idea what the deal is with Lance. Sometimes he makes a jumper or has a nice drive, but overall he just doesn't look good at any aspect of the game besides finding a good pass that few players can make. I also think he plays afraid to go to the line because of his free throw percentage.

                    I never imagined Lance would be this bad. I thought he would be a headache but still have big games.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Wondering if the coaches told him to shoot 3's or if that's something the team is trying to do to gain Lance confidence in his shot again. I think a lot of the problem with his shooting has to do with a lack of confidence.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        He doesn't have a clue as to what he's supposed to be doing on the court. The way Charlotte has used him this year just makes things worse. Is he a PG ?? A SG ?? Pass first ?? Shoot first ?? Run the break ?? Set up the offense ?? If the coaching staff doesn't know - then how can he ??

                        I think at this point, he fully realizes that the system that he had here in Indy was the best for him. Sure - it held him back a little, but i think we can all agree that he was a much better TEAM PLAYER here than he's been in Charlotte. He had the players, coaching staff and Bird firmly on his side, guiding him along and that system got results. Jordan doesn't have a clue. I would doubt that Jordan communicates with him like Bird did.

                        Unless Charlotte unloads him by the trade deadline, it's going to be a loooooooooooong season for him. And if nobody bites on a trade for him this year, they'll still be thinking twice in the off-season and for the next 2 seasons to come. Lance's dream of a big payday down the road is pretty much gone.

                        Sad - I always thought he could really be an asset here - the way he was being used. Charlotte is just killing his career.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Lance's horrific Jan. seems to be duplicating itself in Feb. thus far. I don't know what's wrong with him but at some point you just have to accept that this is who he is and he doesn't have that all star ceiling that so many thought he had. My gut feeling is that if they don't move him by the all star break they'll buy him out after this season and perhaps use the stretch provision on his salary. They were very smart in only guaranteeing 2 years of his contract by getting the team option in year 3. We could have been stuck with this for 5 years if he signed our deal. I don't see anyone taking Stephenson unless it's for very bad contract in return and with only 1 more year guaranteed I can't see the Hornets giving away assets to move him. I'd still take their first round pick but not unless Bird would waive Lance immediately. I think Lance had a very negative impact on our bench and on GH last year. After seeing what Hill is capable of in limited action this season I want to see how he performs beside PG next year as the #2 option and I wouldn't want Lance here to screw that up.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            Lance's horrific Jan. seems to be duplicating itself in Feb. thus far. I don't know what's wrong with him but at some point you just have to accept that this is who he is and he doesn't have that all star ceiling that so many thought he had. My gut feeling is that if they don't move him by the all star break they'll buy him out after this season and perhaps use the stretch provision on his salary. They were very smart in only guaranteeing 2 years of his contract by getting the team option in year 3. We could have been stuck with this for 5 years if he signed our deal. I don't see anyone taking Stephenson unless it's for very bad contract in return and with only 1 more year guaranteed I can't see the Hornets giving away assets to move him. I'd still take their first round pick but not unless Bird would waive Lance immediately. I think Lance had a very negative impact on our bench and on GH last year. After seeing what Hill is capable of in limited action this season I want to see how he performs beside PG next year as the #2 option and I wouldn't want Lance here to screw that up.
                            Perfect 4 or 5th option on a playoff team. Vogel got too hasty last season giving him so much more responsibility in the offense over George Hill. Vogel Got blinded by talent, too much Cayenne Pepper.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Perfect 4 or 5th option on a playoff team. Vogel got too hasty last season giving him so much more responsibility in the offense over George Hill. Got blinded by talent.

                              I agree with that and I hope Vogel is learning from his mistakes. The biggest mistake made last year was in handing the reigns over to Lance and Paul followed by playing Lance too much with the bench and overplaying our starters at the beginning of the season. This year he's coaching more and handing over the reigns less and he's also trusting what he has for a bench more then he did last year, however he's had no real choice. I hope next year that we see the same approach when everyone is healthy.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                                Lance's horrific Jan. seems to be duplicating itself in Feb. thus far. I don't know what's wrong with him but at some point you just have to accept that this is who he is and he doesn't have that all star ceiling that so many thought he had. My gut feeling is that if they don't move him by the all star break they'll buy him out after this season and perhaps use the stretch provision on his salary. They were very smart in only guaranteeing 2 years of his contract by getting the team option in year 3. We could have been stuck with this for 5 years if he signed our deal. I don't see anyone taking Stephenson unless it's for very bad contract in return and with only 1 more year guaranteed I can't see the Hornets giving away assets to move him. I'd still take their first round pick but not unless Bird would waive Lance immediately. I think Lance had a very negative impact on our bench and on GH last year. After seeing what Hill is capable of in limited action this season I want to see how he performs beside PG next year as the #2 option and I wouldn't want Lance here to screw that up.
                                Yeah, at some point. But not based on less than half of a season and when he's clearly in a bad situation for him. His lack of FTA was disconcerting when he was a Pacer, but it's pretty bizarre these days, I mean getting to the line once in 5 games with his skill set is almost unfathomable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X