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 Heisenberg View Post
    Really good, thorough, season review of Lance from a good Hornets blogger. It's not pretty.

    http://lamarmatic.com/2015/04/21/sea...ce-stephenson/
    Yikes, his "open" shot percentage as well as his "wide open" shot percentage are downright awful. I knew it was bad, but not this bad.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      No. Let me provide a quick example.

      Do you think Reggie Miller or Troy Murphy is a better three point shooter in the context of an NBA basketball game? Let's call it a competitive game.

      Did you know, when given as many reps as Reggie had, Troy shot 45% from three in 2008-09?...far better than Reggie ever did. Does that make him a better 3 point shooter, even just for a year? Ever notice that Reggie made his shots on the run with players draped over him while Troy made them while wide open? How do you factor in that context? That's my main question.

      This is generally the pattern. Almost always, the truth cannot be determined from the numbers alone. Not saying they cannot be mentioned as supporting evidence. But when people start wheeling out advanced stats as-if they definitely prove something...all I have to say is be careful. Don't cast that net too wide and make assumptions.

      Edit: BTW, it's all opinion including the eye test which I think is a better measure in most instances because it takes in a lot more context. The matchups...the stages of a game...etc., etc.
      THERE YOU GO DUDE.

      See I don't have a problem with you saying what you say about Lance, it was how you said it and what you used to defend it that I had a problem with. This one post gives more to your argument than all of the previous one's combined.

      Well said.
      #LanceEffect

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Did you know, when given as many reps as Reggie had, Troy shot 45% from three in 2008-09?...far better than Reggie ever did. Does that make him a better 3 point shooter, even just for a year? Ever notice that Reggie made his shots on the run with players draped over him while Troy made them while wide open?
        To be fair to Troy, he actually was pretty good that year! His TS% of 0.614% was excellent, he averaged a double double (only done once by a Pacer since - Murphey in 09-10) and his VORP of 3.1 was the best of any Pacer until the 2012-2013 season when it was surpassed by George, Hill, and West. Is Troy a great player? No, but 08-09 was he played well. Sorry, well off topic.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          No. Let me provide a quick example.

          Do you think Reggie Miller or Troy Murphy is a better three point shooter in the context of an NBA basketball game? Let's call it a competitive game.

          Did you know, when given as many reps as Reggie had, Troy shot 45% from three in 2008-09?...far better than Reggie ever did. Does that make him a better 3 point shooter, even just for a year? Ever notice that Reggie made his shots on the run with players draped over him while Troy made them while wide open? How do you factor in that context? That's my main question.

          This is generally the pattern. Almost always, the truth cannot be determined from the numbers alone. Not saying they cannot be mentioned as supporting evidence. But when people start wheeling out advanced stats as-if they definitely prove something...all I have to say is be careful. Don't cast that net too wide and make assumptions.

          Edit: BTW, it's all opinion including the eye test which I think is a better measure in most instances because it takes in a lot more context. The matchups...the stages of a game...etc., etc.

          Depends on what you mean by "better." It proves he was more accurate, for that season.

          You're arguing against the intrepretation of the stat, not the stat itself. Which is why you would do better to explain why the intrepretation of the stat is wrong, rather than trying to throw stats as a whole under the bus.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            Stats are useless without context.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              Stats are useless without context.
              Great example for you: Andrew Bynum averaged 11.5 pts and 9.5 rebounds in only 19 minutes per game for the Pacers last year.....
              Danger Zone

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                Great example for you: Andrew Bynum averaged 11.5 pts and 9.5 rebounds in only 19 minutes per game for the Pacers last year.....
                What's wrong there? I thought for the most part, when Bynum played for us, he looked really good. That sample size is really small though.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  I'd still like BnG to answer this. Once. Please.

                  The 12-13 season and the 13-14 season had the same starting lineup. All starting five players where the same from both seasons.

                  There were only two differences. First, PG made a dramatic jump in the 13-14 season. He threw up nearly 22 a game in 13-14 versus his 17 a game in the prior season.

                  The second change? GH3 was the 4th option on the 12-13 season, and Lance was the 4th option on the 13-14 season. The 12-13 season had Lance as the fifth option and the 13-14 season GH3 was the fifth option.

                  That was the only difference in the makeup of those teams.

                  Now here is the damning evidence:

                  The 12-13 season had the better offense. But both seasons featured weak offenses. After having a strong season scoring the ball in 11-12, there was a dramatic dip in scoring in 12-13. They were ranked 20th in 12-13. In 13-14, despite BnG's claim that GH3 is suited to play off the ball since he isn't that good, and Lance should run the offense, the team dropped in ranking to 23rd in the NBA.

                  Hill threw 14.8PPG and 5.1 assists as the fourth option on the 12-13 team and that same season Lance scored 11 and had 3.5 assists as the fifth option.

                  The following season the offense, now ranked 23rd, Lance threw up 14.1PPG and 4.7 APG. Keep in mind, these numbers, clearly less than Hill's the season before are BnG's reason as to why Lance either should have been an All-Star, or is near All-Star level play. GH3, in the 13-14, now subjected to being the fifth option, or Lance's role from the prior season, threw up 11.6 and 3.9APG.

                  If you compare GH3 and Lance in similar roles, GH3 puts up better numbers, tho you'll notice that team's offense suffers the more Hill's role is diminished. The offense with GH3 in control is better, despite the fact that one would assume the opposite would be true considering PG's massive jump in play in 13-14. So what gives?

                  Even more damning, the offense changes completely in 14-15, with the coach realizing his dump-it-to-Roy strategy isn't working. He allows Gh3 to run the offense and do what he wants. What happens? The Pacers have their best offense of the era by far.

                  Top it all off with this- BnG has repeatedly argued Gh3 is no where near an All-Star level player, which would be fine coming from anyone else. The problem is, GH3 averaged 6 more points and 1.5 more assists per game with less turnovers, and a far superior shooting percentage then Lance's "all-star campaign."



                  (removed) - This reference isn't necessary



                  The numbers in the same roles in 3 consecutive seasons:

                  Fifth option for both:
                  Lance Stephenson 22 78 72 2278 4.3 9.5 .460 1.0 3.0 .330 3.4 6.5 .520 1.2 1.8 .652 0.7 4.1 4.8 3.5 1.3 0.3 1.7 2.6 10.9
                  George Hill 27 76 76 2434 4.0 9.1 442 1.4 3.8 .365 2.6 5.3 .497 2.1 2.6 .807 0.8 3.4 4.2 3.9 1.1 0.3 1.4 2.3 11.6

                  Fourth Option for both:
                  George Hill 26 76 76 2620 5.3 12.0 .443 1.8 4.9 .368 3.5 7.1 .494 2.4 2.9 .817 0.6 3.3 3.9 4.9 1.1 0.4 1.6 1.8 14.8
                  Lance Stephenson 23 78 78 2752 5.6 11.4 .491 1.1 3.2 .352 4.5 8.2 .545 1.8 2.6 .711 1.2 6.1 7.3 4.7 0.7 0.1 2.7 2.6 14.1

                  First Option For Both:
                  George Hill 28 43 36 1267 7.2 15.2 .477 2.0 5.5 .358 5.3 9.7 .544 3.2 4.1 .790 0.7 4.4 5.1 6.3 1.3 0.4 2.0 3.2 19.7
                  Lance Stephenson 24 61 25 1573 4.7 12.6 .376 0.4 2.4 .171 4.3 10.2 .425 1.6 2.5 .627 0.9 5.4 6.3 5.5 0.9 0.2 2.9 3.1 11.5
                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  By the way, I'll continue to bring up GH3 and Lance together because you can't bring up one without the other. They swapped roles in consecutive years. Then, to top it off, they both had the SAME role in the 14-15 season on bad teams. Both had the opportunity, for the first time in their career, to be high usage number one options on bad teams.

                  The **** that makes BnG cry himself to sleep every night? Hill led his team to a 60% winning percentage while scoring 20 a game. Lance damn near played himself out of the league.

                  Hill has out played Lance in every possible way. As the fifth option. The fourth option. and the First option. Compare their numbers in 3 seasons. Hill out performed him every time.
                  They didn't even play the same position.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                    They didn't even play the same position.
                    Their role within the offense was the same

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Their role within the offense was the same
                      I think the correct answer was not about position, it was that the premise that the offense in 11-12 was better than 12-13 and 13-14 is sketchy at best, and 13-14 was definitely better than 12-13. We scored two more points per game in 13-14 vs 12-13, we shot better from 2 and 3 and the free throw line and made more free throws per game. The reason the rating looks lower is because the league average went up. Having said that, we actually played better D in 13-14 than 12-13, so even though the league average went up more than our average, teams scored less against us in 13-14 than 12-13.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


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

                        Why is this thread still happening? We might as well have a 245 page thread on Solomon Hill. He was a horribly inefficient wing player who actually played for the Pacers this year.


                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          I think the correct answer was not about position, it was that the premise that the offense in 11-12 was better than 12-13 and 13-14 is sketchy at best, and 13-14 was definitely better than 12-13. We scored two more points per game in 13-14 vs 12-13, we shot better from 2 and 3 and the free throw line and made more free throws per game. The reason the rating looks lower is because the league average went up. Having said that, we actually played better D in 13-14 than 12-13, so even though the league average went up more than our average, teams scored less against us in 13-14 than 12-13.
                          The offense was a lot better in 11-12. If you don't want to believe that... Well, that's fine I guess, but the offense was far superior in 11-12 than any season since. That's why they won a lot of games in 11-12, despite not having the dominate defense that the teams in 12-13 and 13-14 had.

                          You'd be correct in saying the defense got better in 13-14. That team had a chance to be one of the all time greats defensively. Then the collapse happened..
                          Last edited by mattie; 04-22-2015, 02:25 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Why is this thread still happening? We might as well have a 245 page thread on Solomon Hill. He was a horribly inefficient wing player who actually played for the Pacers this year.
                            sup with that dark mark on Solo's right temple? birthmark?

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              sup with that dark mark on Solo's right temple? birthmark?
                              He's a flawed player. Might as well move him on somewhere.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Why is this thread still happening? We might as well have a 245 page thread on Solomon Hill. He was a horribly inefficient wing player who actually played for the Pacers this year.
                                It's less interesting because Solo isn't getting paid $9,000,000 to be a horribly inefficient wing player.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X