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 Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

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

  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Interestingly, in a conversation about someone who is a rim protector, the small change in the overall stats from 2013-2014 can be explained by a huge improvement in defense from greater than 15 feet (44.4 -> 36.3) that offsets the decline in defense from less than 6 feet (44.6 -> 47.2) and less than 10 feet (41.9 -> 43.4)
    So Roy improved overall defensively, but progressively declined defensively, all at the same time.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      A seasonal average is going to tell me more what a player is, and what they did, better than focusing on one month.
      I'm not focusing on one single month. I am looking at multiple months as individual sets of statistics rather than as an aggregate.

      This is hard because we are extrapolating from aggregate statistics and making educated guesses. And you are correct that Roy's history of "good one half bad the next" affects how much we can assume a trend in one direction or the other. But it is certainly true that that kind of inconsistency is bad in and of itself, and that a measurable drop from year to year using the annual average can also indicate that even when normalizing out the inconsistency there is a problem.

      "progressive decline" doesn't mean he went from elite to suck. It can mean he went from elite to just above average (as has been argued before in this thread) - which decline in and of itself hurts his value significantly because he has nothing else to back it up.

      Bottom line is that looking at an annual average tells you nothing about how that player's game progressed as the season progressed. I'd rather have a player steady at a slightly lower average than one who has a bit higher average but starts of strong and can't play to his average level at the end of the season - and the annual average isn't going to tell you the difference.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        So Roy improved overall defensively, but progressively declined defensively, all at the same time.
        Huh? He declined by a little bit overall and declined in two out of three areas which are arguably supposed to be his strengths.

        If you really place importance on his increase in defense from >15 feet then he should be out there guarding players at the perimeter and to heck with his defense in the paint or at the rim. Which is silly.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Interesting that you picked Roy's best career year. Pick any player, pick their best seasonal outputs, and you can argue that every player declined after.
          Wait, WTF?! Of course I picked that year! The discussion is whether he has been on the decline. You wouldn't compare his last two years to his rookie year, you would compare them to the year before those two years!! You need sequential years for comparison for decline.
          Danger Zone

          Comment


          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
            Wait, WTF?! Of course I picked that year! The discussion is whether he has been on the decline. You wouldn't compare his last two years to his rookie year, you would compare them to the year before those two years!! You need sequential years for comparison for decline.
            You didn't compare sequential years though. You pointed out that he declined from his best seasonal year.

            I've already pointed out that Roy's output last season, when equal mpg, pretty much his exact output from 12-13. I was told I was "cherry picking" those seasons. If I'm cherry picking those seasons, pointing out a player declined from his best season ever, is most definitely cherry picking.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2015, 04:36 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Huh? He declined by a little bit overall and declined in two out of three areas which are arguably supposed to be his strengths.
              In 13-14, his DefFG% was 42.5%
              In 14-15, his DefFG% was 41.4%

              So his defense got better last season compared to the season prior overall, when looking at DefFG%.

              EDIT: And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't oppoFG% the FG% of the player the defender is guarding? (And by that I mean the FG% of centers Roy is guarding)
              And isn't defFG% the FG% of all shots of all players when Roy is "guarding" them within 5ft?

              Roy's defFG% is impacted by any player that took a shot with Roy within 5ft (guarding) them.
              Roy's oppoFG% is impacted by only centers that Roy is assigned to guard.
              Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2015, 04:40 PM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                That is a different argument.

                The current argument is that Roy's defense got worse. The argument you're making with this is "the Pacers defense got better with Roy off the court." The two, while similar, aren't the same.

                Roy's defense could stay static, while the Pacers defense got better with Ian in the lineup rather than Roy.
                So your saying Roy was overrated?

                Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  You didn't compare sequential years though. You pointed out that he declined from his best seasonal year.

                  I've already pointed out that Roy's output last season, when equal mpg, pretty much his exact output from 12-13. I was told I was "cherry picking" those seasons. If I'm cherry picking those seasons, pointing out a player declined from his best season ever, is most definitely cherry picking.
                  I did compare sequential. He declined, year upon year, from that year. So that is sequential, from one year to the next. I really don't know how to make this any more obvious. 2012-13 was better than 2013-14, which was better than 2014-15. That is a sequential decline, comparing year to year to year. That is not cherry picking, that is the exact heart of what this argument is about.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                    Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                    So your saying Roy was overrated?

                    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                    depends how highly you rated him I guess.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      So your saying Roy was overrated?

                      Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                      Nope. Saying Ian is pretty damn good.

                      I've said that for years too, while posters that now talk Ian up used to whine that he was overpaid.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        I did compare sequential. He declined, year upon year, from that year. So that is sequential, from one year to the next. I really don't know how to make this any more obvious. 2012-13 was better than 2013-14, which was better than 2014-15. That is a sequential decline, comparing year to year to year. That is not cherry picking, that is the exact heart of what this argument is about.
                        Right. And that would be true for pretty much every player you can think of, minus players that just put up their best year statistical year.

                        LeBron James has been declining since 07-08, using your standards.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          In 13-14, his DefFG% was 42.5%
                          In 14-15, his DefFG% was 41.4%

                          So his defense got better last season compared to the season prior overall, when looking at DefFG%.
                          OK. I hate having to flip back and forth between screens where you have to refresh each time. Makes my eyes cross.

                          But, again, the improvement there is pretty much all predicated on the improvement in defFG% from >15 feet. Does this REALLY mean that Roy has become an away-from-the-basket defender? I suspect that it is a little more complicated than that.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          EDIT: And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't oppoFG% the FG% of the player the defender is guarding? (And by that I mean the FG% of centers Roy is guarding)
                          And isn't defFG% the FG% of all shots of all players when Roy is "guarding" them within 5ft?

                          Roy's defFG% is impacted by any player that took a shot with Roy within 5ft (guarding) them.
                          Roy's oppoFG% is impacted by only centers that Roy is assigned to guard.
                          No, oppFG% is the FG% of the entire team when Roy is on the floor (mouse over the definition of oppFGA). DefFG% is the man Roy is defending, as you say.

                          So, I'm not sure why you posted those stats in the argument a few pages back, and we can disregard them in favor of the defFG% from here on out.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            OK. I hate having to flip back and forth between screens where you have to refresh each time. Makes my eyes cross.

                            But, again, the improvement there is pretty much all predicated on the improvement in defFG% from >15 feet. Does this REALLY mean that Roy has become an away-from-the-basket defender? I suspect that it is a little more complicated than that.
                            Now THAT is interesting. Here you've been saying that oppoFG% going down, proves the point he's been declining. The moment I show a defense stat getting better, you're breaking down splits and saying it's more complicated that simply looking at the FG%.

                            Had I said "yeah, his oppoFG% got worse, but it's more complicated than that" I bet you would have rejected that argument.




                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            No, oppFG% is the FG% of the entire team when Roy is on the floor (mouse over the definition of oppFGA). DefFG% is the man Roy is defending, as you say.

                            So, I'm not sure why you posted those stats in the argument a few pages back, and we can disregard them in favor of the defFG% from here on out.
                            Because I've been under the assumption that oppoFG% was any player within 5ft. We can definitely use DefFG% from here on out, it only supports what I've been saying even more so.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              But, again, the improvement there is pretty much all predicated on the improvement in defFG% from >15 feet. Does this REALLY mean that Roy has become an away-from-the-basket defender? I suspect that it is a little more complicated than that.
                              To answer myself rather than edit the original, it looks like that improvement just reflects Roy improving from being an asset to opponents shooting against him from >15 feet (they scored 5.5 points ABOVE THEIR AVERAGES in 2013-2014) to being able to defend (holding them to 2.5 points below their averages).

                              Does this change justify throwing out any thought of Roy's decline? It depends - raw numbers wise, it would seem that Roy gaining 8 points worth of defense would offset Roy losing 6.1 points of defense (the difference between the <10 feet and < 6 feet numbers), but I think there are more detriments to it than the numbers would indicate.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Had I said "yeah, his oppoFG% got worse, but it's more complicated than that" I bet you would have rejected that argument.
                                See above where I work with it, but you again want to say doing something with a component of a statistic is the same as lumping everything into an aggregate and doing the same thing.

                                I mean, do you REALLY want to put forth the argument that Roy got worse as a rim defender because he is working on being a defender against long-range shots? Or do you not care that we're 3000+ posts into an argument about Roy as a rim defender but your current statistic depends on him improving from elsewhere to cover up the decline in the original position?
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X