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

Bruno seems to agree with most of us

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 13
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 template Next
  • #106
    Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

    Here's an interesting article about defensive rating as a stat. It's a few years old, but it's a good read:

    http://www.slcdunk.com/2013/1/31/393...ensive-ratings

    This is somewhat of a non-sequitur post, but the explanation of this is far too long to explain on Twitter, and I see the mistake often enough that I think it needs addressing, at the very least so I can link to it later.

    The issue is Defensive Rating. Very often, in a discussion about a player's relative strengths and weaknesses, one wants to make a point about a defender's impact on the game, either in a positive or negative light. Naturally, stats are useful for this, as they tend to show that you're serious about what you're talking about. Furthermore, you might even have evidence for your assertions and are not just making stuff up as you go along. Clearly, the next logical step, is to use a defensive statistic to prove your point, and Defensive Rating is just sitting there on BasketballReference.com, calling you to it like Odysseus' Sirens.

    Unfortunately, like those sirens, DRTG wants you to shipwreck. Here's is BasketballReference's glossary definition of the statistic:

    Defensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players and teams it is points allowed per 100 posessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper. I will point you to Dean's book for complete details.
    Okay, let's go to Oliver's book! Luckily, he has an entire appendix on how he calculates his DRTG, perfect for this explanation. His idea is sound:

    The basic theory behind individual defensive ratings is that a player's defense impacts each possession to a limited degree, providing a base defensive rating, but that a player is more prominent in those possessions where he directly allows a score or contributes a stop, providing a modification to the base defensive rating. The formula reflecting this theory is:

    DRtg = TMDRtg + %TMDPoss * [100 x DPtsPerScPoss * (1- Stop%) - TMDRTG]
    Ack, a formula! Let's understand each of the individual terms. DRtg is the individual defensive rating that we're looking at. TMDRtg is the number of points the team allows per 100 possessions. %TMDPoss is a statistic of Oliver's creation: it reflects the percentage of defensive possessions on which the player is the primary defender. Stop% is the percentage of times the primary defensive player successfully forces a missed shot or a turnover, while DPtsPerScPoss is how many points, on average, the player allows when the shot is made (or a foul is committed).

    In short, the formula takes the team's defensive points allowed, and makes an adjustment to it based on how often a player makes an impact, and how positive that impact is. In many ways, it's like a mix of team defensive ratings and Synergy's individual Points Per Possession allowed. This is looking good.

    The problem, unfortunately, is that BasketballReference's DRTG uses only box score stats. That means we don't know %TMDPoss, DPtsPerScPoss, or Stop%, because NBA scorers don't track those things. We know, essentially, team DRTG, and that's it. So, significant estimations need to be made.

    First, Oliver chooses to estimate that each player uses an equal amount of his team's possessions, i.e., 1/5 or 20%. Without any other data to go on, this is the best he can do.

    Second, DPtsPerScPoss is simply set equal to be the team's defensive points divided by the scoring possessions, rather than being set on an individual level. This means that, for example, guards that give up a lot of three-pointers are not-adequately punished for their failed stops.

    Third, Stop% must must be estimated. The main part of this estimation is given by the formula

    Stops = STL + BLK + FMwt * (1 - 1.07 * DOR%) + DREB * (1 - FMwt)
    Which basically totals the player's steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds, and discounts the defensive rebounds by the percentage of times a missed shot happens (about 55% of the time) divided by the percentage of defensive rebounds gathered (about 70% of the time). Yes, DRTG gives players defensive credit for defensive rebounds. In fact, the system gives them about 80% of the credit as it gives normal blocks or steals. That means that for most players, DRTG is heavily, even primarily, impacted by the number of defensive rebounds gathered.

    Let's look at an example: the 2006-07 Jazz. Here are the Basketball Reference DRTG's of every player on that team:

    Rk Player DRtg ▴
    1 Paul Millsap 102
    2 Andrei Kirilenko 103
    3 Carlos Boozer 104
    4 Rafael Araujo 106
    5 Dee Brown 107
    6 Ronnie Brewer 107
    7 Matt Harpring 108
    8 Mehmet Okur 108
    9 C.J. Miles 109
    10 Derek Fisher 109
    11 Jarron Collins 110
    12 Gordan Giricek 110
    13 Deron Williams 110
    14 Roger Powell 115
    15 Louis Amundson 116
    Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table

    The Jazz TMDRtg was 107 this season. Look who's at the top: Paul Millsap, Andrei Kirilenko, and then Carlos Boozer. Millsap finished 2nd on the team in defensive rebounds per 36 minutes, and added a pretty good number of steals and blocks to get the #1 title. Andrei Kirilenko contributed his usual assortment of pretty good rebounding, plus team-highs in blocks and steals. Carlos Boozer? He just defensive rebounded. That's it, but that contribution alone takes him to 3rd on the list. DRTG sees him as an above average defender, but most observers would probably agree that he was not.

    On the other hand, this calculus hurts players like Ronnie Brewer, who played very good defense, but had only an above-average number of steals to show for it. While steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds are important indicative stats for a defender, having them (especially defensive rebounds) doesn't necessarily mean a positive defensive impact. BR's DRTG largely asks two questions: how good was your team overall on defense, and did how many steals, blocks, or rebounds did you get?

    This isn't to say that all Defensive Rating statistics are bad: for example NBA.com's DefRtg simply keeps track of how many points per 100 possessions the player's team allows while they're on the floor. While that too is obviously skewed by lineups and other factors, it offers a very different picture than Basketball Reference's stats.

    It's just something to keep in mind: while statistical analysis does provide a fantastic and objective way forward in analyzing the beautiful game, there are some potential pitfalls that can lead one to making some questionable conclusions.

    Comment

    • #107
      Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      I don't really care about the organization preaching accountability or proving it's BS. That sort of thing is just noise to me, but other than that, I don't disagree with what you are saying there.
      And yet, I got called out by you Peck and Dr. Awe.

      Comment

      • #108
        Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        And yet, I got called out by you Peck and Dr. Awe.
        It's not your overarching point, it's the details and the way you were arguing it. Or that's why I jumped in at least.

        Comment

        • #109
          Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          It's not your overarching point, it's the details and the way you were arguing it. Or that's why I jumped in at least.
          Only details I argued were presented by Peck, who started defending Vogel and Granger for some reason.

          Comment

          • #110
            Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Do you think individual rankings of defensive ability changes with team rankings too? To be logically consistent, the answer would be yes.

            If team defrtg=proper measurement of how good an individual is, then how good an individual is would have to fluctuate with the team ranking.
            Sooooo Pacers are good defensively because of space? that is the only explanation as we know 3 of the starters are trash defenders that need to be offered to a volcano god as soon as possible
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment

            • #111
              Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

              You're deflecting. And idk even know what you mean by space.

              I think they're below average on the whole with one of the best individual defenders in the entire NBA. Unless you think Paul is now an average defender, you have no defensible point.

              Team rating reflect the individual ratings so Paul is the definition of average. And Monta. And GRIII. Which invalidates defense point because makes no difference, since both are average.
              Last edited by Since86; 12-02-2016, 09:52 PM.
              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment

              • #112
                Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                You're deflecting. And idk even know what you mean by space.

                I think they're below average on the whole with one of the best individual defenders in the entire NBA. Unless you think Paul is now an average defender, you have no defensible point.

                PG is not even playing right now and I thought you said one individual didn't make that huge of a difference overall?
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment

                • #113
                  Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                  The Pacers are what, 15th in total defense now? That's exactly average.

                  Comment

                  • #114
                    Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                    The Pacers are average defensively.


                    Though a useful stat, defensive rating isn't the end all, be all. And even there we rate as an average defensive team.

                    Comment

                    • #115
                      Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      PG is not even playing right now and I thought you said one individual didn't make that huge of a difference overall?
                      They don't. I'm seeing whether or not you'll keep your point logically consistent. Posing a question doesn't mean my answer to the question is yes, especially when i said PG isn't average.

                      So are you going to be consistent, is PG average?
                      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment

                      • #116
                        Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        The Pacers are average defensively.


                        Though a useful stat, defensive rating isn't the end all, be all. And even there we rate as an average defensive team.
                        It is barely a starting point when discussing individuals.
                        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment

                        • #117
                          Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          Peck said the players were in on a conspiracy pushing accountability.
                          Not that it will matter much to you and your own internal narrative but you do realize you are the one who called this a PR conspiracy, right?


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment

                          • #118
                            Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                            I don't remember all this questioning of the defensive efficiency rating when Pacers were one of the best. Just eye test, it usually matches pretty closely to my opinion.

                            Comment

                            • #119
                              Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              They don't. I'm seeing whether or not you'll keep your point logically consistent. Posing a question doesn't mean my answer to the question is yes, especially when i said PG isn't average.

                              So are you going to be consistent, is PG average?
                              PG has been average this year he kind of said the same thing in indy star today and again he ain't playing.


                              Point is the team at least is "average" (according to cdash,ace) was top 10 before Portland, so I repeat this team is not the defensive trash many think it is so it fits their agenda.

                              At this point without PG they are in the middle (as expected) but I expect them to be top 10 at the end of the year even with the trash "defensive thiefs" of Monta, Teague, Young.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment

                              • #120
                                Re: Bruno seems to agree with most of us

                                When the Pacers were one of the best, no one was using defrtg to argue luis scola was a top defender. Under vnzla's logic, he would have been.

                                Not all questions are the same. No one questioned defrtg, because we used it as a team stat, not an individual.
                                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 template Next
                                Working...
                                X