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

Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

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

  • #61
    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Matters != correct.

    Hollinger is being ripped for being "wrong", and by other people with no more history of being right than he has for the protection of the people that do matter who also have a history of being wrong.

    In other words what harm is there in his opinions, especially if they "don't matter"? Maybe he's struck upon some insight that others are overlooking. I mean he could be right about some players, what's the harm in hearing it now if that's true?

    I think he fuels some good discussion on players. He certainly asks people to defend what measures they think determine which players will have NBA success.
    Seeing that he thinks Matt Howard is going to be a better prospect than Eric Gordon shows how absolutely ridiculous he and his system is.

    Go watch Butler and Matt Howard and then try to defend his position. Matt was a very good high school player, and is a very useful player at Butler. He's really their only low post player.

    He's 6'8" (maybe), slow footed, probably a little too much overweight, and isn't very athletic AT ALL.

    He would be eaten alive by NBA players. He's not big enough to play down low, and not even close to being able to play outside even at the HS level. He's one of those decent size with really good footwork when catching the ball on the block that can rebound because he knows how to get position. So he'll have a good career at Butler. Will be a huge part of the success they're going to have, but to think he's a good NBA prospect? Get real.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

      Originally posted by Kofi View Post


      There's Gordon standing next to Derrick Rose, who's height is also questionable. I've seen him listed from 6'2"-6'4" (ESPN has him at 6'3"). Gordon is about 2" taller, which would make the 6'4" claim realistic and the 6'5" not out of the question, although I don't think he's quite that tall. Eric has a wide, muscular frame, so that would likely make him look slightly shorter than he actually is.

      My guess - 6'4"
      Wow, Gordon looks so much taller than Rose. I think i've always saw Rose listed at like 6'4 but from the looks of it here that can't be right.

      I'll never understand why it is so hard to get a players height right. It always changes. One day Gordon is 6'2 and the next he is 6'5. Jeez.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

        Originally posted by rommie View Post
        Wow, Gordon looks so much taller than Rose. I think i've always saw Rose listed at like 6'4 but from the looks of it here that can't be right.

        I'll never understand why it is so hard to get a players height right. It always changes. One day Gordon is 6'2 and the next he is 6'5. Jeez.
        Because everyone wants to be listed taller than they really are. It's not uncommon to see someone "shrink" 2 inches when they go to the pre-draft combine and get their heights taken by someone who doesn't give a rip.

        In all honesty, I don't get the big deal about the height factor. People talk about how a SG has good size when they're 6'6" but act like it's the plague when they're 6'4".

        Two inches isn't that big of a deal when standing 20ft from the basket. I'd much rather have a better athlete who's a bit shorter than someone who's bigger. Shooting is more about creating space and being able to get an open look, than being able to shoot over the top.

        Shooting over the top really only comes in handy when you're talking about Dirk shooting over a smaller guard, or someone that's gonna be 5-6inches taller where there's a really big gap.

        Kobe isn't Kobe because he's taller than everyone else, and LeBron isn't that much bigger than all the other SFs in the league.

        I could make a list of things I would want to see out of any position player and height is going to be farther down on the list than what most want to believe.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

          Since we're talking IU players and draft position here... What's the latest on DJ White?

          I like DJ White because he seems like an imminently mature and coachable player. He stayed at IU thru the turmoil and didn't get involved in the war of words or the "he goes, I go" BS. Sampson praised him for sacrificing his own game last year because the team needed him to go away from his strengths while Sampson surrounded him with a different mix of players.

          He shows emotion on the court, but it isn't preening and posing.

          I think it's been lost on the Gordon hype just what a solid year DJ is having... and I wonder how much of that translates to his NBA stock these days?

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

            DJ's problem is height ultimately. he's a bit of a tweener, like a leon powe type tweener. the other thing is similar to ike in that he hasn't face a great deal of elite big men (outside of greg oden last season). my guess is he could sneak into the first round like jared dudley did (another tweener) but probably be early to mid 2nd rounder.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

              DJ is a beast this year, he is on pace to be the first person to average over 12 rebounds a game in conference play since like 1977, not to mention he has 4 Big Ten player of the week awards at this point of the season and I think the record for that is 5 in a season. His total season numbers are 17.5 pts and 10.7 rebs a game, but ever since Big Ten play started he is averaging 19.75 pts and 12.25 boards with 2 blocks a game, pretty impressive really. He shows up every game, he even had a 21 point 22 board game vs. Michigan earlier in the season. I would take DJ White over Ike Diougu any day of the week.
              Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. IU's Gordon is 439

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Seeing that he thinks Matt Howard is going to be a better prospect than Eric Gordon shows how absolutely ridiculous he and his system is.

                Go watch Butler and Matt Howard and then try to defend his position. Matt was a very good high school player, and is a very useful player at Butler. He's really their only low post player.

                He's 6'8" (maybe), slow footed, probably a little too much overweight, and isn't very athletic AT ALL.

                He would be eaten alive by NBA players. He's not big enough to play down low, and not even close to being able to play outside even at the HS level. He's one of those decent size with really good footwork when catching the ball on the block that can rebound because he knows how to get position. So he'll have a good career at Butler. Will be a huge part of the success they're going to have, but to think he's a good NBA prospect? Get real.
                He doesn't "think" that. He admits that A) the system is in development and B) it's way too early to be certain since there isn't enough data.

                And besides all that he's not wrong YET. I mean is everyone gone to pile into this thread if his FINAL projections end up being dead on 3 years from now? Nope. It'll long be forgotten and every single dissenter will have moved on. If I bump the thread people will say "let it go already".

                Your are right about one thing, this WILL NOT be the mock drafts or the real draft order. But we both know that every mock draft and the actual final draft will have some surprises and flops. Maybe his system will predict some of those.

                BTW, what pick was used to get Brad Miller, all-star center? Yeah, those scouts and mock draft experts sure nailed that one. No way Hollinger's numbers could have that kind of success.



                I'm not even defending his current list as right. I'm just saying we don't know and it introduces some issues to the discussion, such as NCAA stats. Personally I don't like to go only by stats, I like to see how a player gets those numbers. Of course he is adding in some physical stats in an attempt to predict some part of the "how".

                But there is Reddick style shooting and Rip Hamilton style shooting, and they didn't look the least bit similar to me. Reddick's offense for example came across as an undersized one trick pony built on being the final outlet in a good offensive system. And in that way I clearly agree with how you are trying to evaluate Howard.

                Still discussing stats != living by them.

                Also, other interesting stats are height, points your team scored, points other team scored, vertical jump, shuttle run time, FT%, and age. Call me crazy but "stats" aren't automatically as vague and riddled with flaws as some would suggest. Often they are a lot closer to something tangible than people want to credit them as being.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                  Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                  DJ's problem is height ultimately. he's a bit of a tweener, like a leon powe type tweener. the other thing is similar to ike in that he hasn't face a great deal of elite big men (outside of greg oden last season). my guess is he could sneak into the first round like jared dudley did (another tweener) but probably be early to mid 2nd rounder.
                  Charles Barkely was what...? 6-6? In fact, Elton Brand is only about 6-8, right? Maybe DJ doesen't have their athleticism, I don't know. He sure looks like an impressive player though...
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                    Charles Barkely was what...? 6-6? In fact, Elton Brand is only about 6-8, right? Maybe DJ doesen't have their athleticism, I don't know. He sure looks like an impressive player though...
                    a lot of DJ's stats have come as a result of not regularly playing elite bigs (outside of greg oden i can't really think of one... correct me if i'm missing someone). most of his offense throughout the years i think has come from his length and strength which will be neutralized in the pros. against greg oden (a one-handed greg oden mind you) last season DJ had a pretty lousy game.

                    my point i guess is that it could really cause him to slip on the draft board. i actually think he could make a servicable pro (especially given his significant improvement in the rebounding dept. this season) but he isn't a lotto pick and maybe not even the late 1st. if i had to compare him to someone i might say he could carve out a malik rose type role for a team.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                      Heights and birthday's aren't basketball stats, there's the rub.

                      He's a mathematician trying to create a system that you can plug in numbers and find out who a better player is. Basketball, like any sport, doesn't work that way.

                      Watching someone play is 10X better than looking at a box score, and that's what he's trying to do. He's looking at a whole bunch of numbers and trying to find the best players.

                      He admits that some players shouldn't be there, but yet continues to tout his system? Any system that has Matt Howard as a top 20 NBA prospect is dead before it even stands. If I'm doing a long algebra problem and somewhere along the line I see that I have a wrong answer to one part of the problem, I don't continue the problem. I stop and I try to find where I went wrong.

                      He's doing the exact opposite. He's shrugging it off and continuing with his equation.

                      It doesn't facilitate that good of discussion because it's not credible. Is arguing the conspiracy theory about 9/11 facilitating good discussion? No, because it's absurd, just like this system he has in place.

                      It's a joke. It can't nor should it be used as evidence for either pro's or con's for a player because of it.

                      Stats are riddled with problems and vagued. How does he weight them when some players put up better numbers against weaker opponents than they do against stronger ones? Who says which opponent is strong and which one is weak?

                      Case in point: Ever heard of Saint Mary's Gaels? I haven't until last night, yet their #25 on the AP Poll and just beat Gonzaga, with a 19-3 overall record.

                      There's no set way to evaluate teams by looking at numbers and finding ways to weight scores against those teams. It's impossible to do.

                      It's a system based around manipulated numbers, and when numbers are manipulated they aren't "facts." They're changed in a way that the mathematician wants them to be changed. They are vague numbers, they aren't tangible because they can be made into whatever you want them to say.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                        a lot of DJ's stats have come as a result of not regularly playing elite bigs (outside of greg oden i can't really think of one... correct me if i'm missing someone). most of his offense throughout the years i think has come from his length and strength which will be neutralized in the pros. against greg oden (a one-handed greg oden mind you) last season DJ had a pretty lousy game.

                        my point i guess is that it could really cause him to slip on the draft board. i actually think he could make a servicable pro (especially given his significant improvement in the rebounding dept. this season) but he isn't a lotto pick and maybe not even the late 1st. if i had to compare him to someone i might say he could carve out a malik rose type role for a team.
                        He has a good jump shot out to 15-17ft now, some new developing post moves and a turn around hook that is $$. Not to mention half his rebounds the past two games have pretty much been one handed. He has just been sucking boards down, its like he has a basketclaw on his wrist and he can just inhale them with one long, twisted arm. As soon as he touches the ball he pulls it down into his chest, one handed or two, before he hits the ground...he has good fundamentals with his boarding when it comes to protecting the ball during and after the rebound. Him only being 6'8-6'9 isn't a big deal because his arms are suuuuper long, like disproportionally long and he can jump really high as well. Has a trademark of throwing the two-handed thunder down all over people.
                        Last edited by jmoney2584; 02-05-2008, 04:27 PM.
                        Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                          Case in point: Ever heard of Saint Mary's Gaels? I haven't until last night, yet their #25 on the AP Poll and just beat Gonzaga, with a 19-3 overall record.

                          I get your point, but just because you haven't heard of the Gaels doesn't mean John Henry Johnson, Tom Meschery and Harry Hooper haven't. I'd also think that Tom Candiotti, Von Hayes, Gus Triandos, Joe Aguirre, Harry Ebding, Dante Magnani, Will Sherman, Willie Wilkin & John Woudenberg would have something to say.

                          The point is great players come from everywhere. Butler's produced some MLB all-stars and a few guys that at least made it to the bigs in football/basketball. I'm not say this guy's better than Gordon but stranger things have happened......Scottie Pippen, Jerry Rice, Jerome Kersey, Rik Smits.....
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                            I know small schools develop good players, that's not what I'm saying.

                            What I'm saying is that Hollinger has a weighted system. He gives 19pts against a team like Memphis more worth than 19pts against IUPUI.

                            How much more weight should they recieve? What happens to that weight if IUPUI just catches fire and turns into a Sweet 16 team all of a sudden?

                            That's why I say he's manipulating numbers. 19pts is 19pts, but not to him. Scoring 19pts on Memphis is like scoring, say, 35pts on IUPUI. How does he come up with the weighted system? Does he just give them whatever he wants? Has he found some special equation that he can just plug and chug?


                            He's not using basketball stats in their intended form. He plays around with them, and other variables that really don't matter like birthdays. How good you are at 18 doesn't directly correlate to how good you're going to be at the age of 22, so why rank it?

                            EDIT: My Saint Mary's example was saying that small schools pop up and turn out to be good one year. Or they have a really good record that makes them seem better than they really are. When Saint Mary's is ranked in the top 25 their weight is going to be more now than if they drop a couple games and fall off completely, which is has a very good possibility. So in essence a player's value drops when their opponent drops and so forth, when nothing has changed with the player. He is what he is, but his ranking flucuates with what everyone else thinks about the teams he has played.
                            Last edited by Since86; 02-05-2008, 04:52 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                              Ya, Gordon is a LITTLE overrated here.. But he is underrated everywhere else.. I'm almost positive he will be the star on the team that picks him up in a few years.. He has everything it takes to be the go to guy.. He has ice cold blood (clutch), and can also play on defense.. Yes, he probably won't be a Superstar, but I see him being a big time player. One of the guys that everyone in the world knows who they are going to have shoot the ball at the end of the game... He is a Kobe caliber player, except he doesn't have the drive in skills that Kobe has.. I see Gordon being a Gilbert Arenas type player.. (Whom if I may add, was also underrated for his skills set.)

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                                Since86, I see. I misinterpreted your point. That being said, I still agree with you. It's just another stat thingy. Of course, if you're ranked highly in a bunch of these stat things it probably carries some weight.
                                I'm in these bands
                                The Humans
                                Dr. Goldfoot
                                The Bar Brawlers
                                ME

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X