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

  • #76
    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.

    Its an interesting point. There is one thing though, in the NBA he would no doubt play power forward. Yet he plays center for IU, and is really the only worthwhile big guy. So its not surprising he cant do much against teams with NBA sized front courts. If you paired him with a legit center, wouldn't that solve some of these problems?

    He has really developed some nice post moves and he has good leaping ability and even a nice face-up jumper. So the skills are there. His freakish long arms help make up for the height disadvantage. I don't know. You might be right. I think at least he is an above average backup power forward in the NBA, but I woulden't be surprised if he could be a starter on a good team.
    "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


    • #77
      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      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?
      To answer your questions, he runs regressions on historical data to determine what has best predicted past results. Variables get tested. Those that are statistically significant are included. Those that aren't are discarded. It's simple econometrics.

      Birthdays do matter. Two guys get identical stats in every way playing the same competition. One is 18 and right out of high school. The other is 22 and a senior. Who is the better prospect? The guy with more time to develop. All other things equal, the guy at 22 is much more polished and has realized more of his potential than the 18 year old.

      Height does matter. It may seem like it doesn't at 20 feet from the basket, but when Tayshaun Prince is flying at you with his arms outstretched, the extra couple of inches on your release point matters. It is statistically significant.

      The quality of your opponent does matter. You can go back to prior seasons to find similar players who scored X points a game as shooting guards in smaller conferences and measure the same things when they got to the NBA. You can find similar players playing a higher level of college competition and measure what they did in the NBA. There is a difference. Otherwise, it wouldn't be included as a variable. If IUPUI's performance looks better later in the year, then that would get factored in too. What he's doing is no different than what Sagarin does with college rankings. Everyone knows a 19-11 ACC team is better than a 19-11 SWAC team. He just applies the same concepts to individual player stats.

      No statistical analysis is the end-all, be-all of player evaluation, but it does give you a nice way of looking at a wide pool of players. No one can evaluate 600 players by watching film. There are exceptions to the rules for things like height (Arenas and Wade come to mind), but compare the list of very good to great shooting guards standing 6-5 to 6-7 to those who are shorter in the last 20 years to see the trend.

      There are limitations, and Hollinger pointed them out. The sample size is small because there is only 1/2 a season of data and that will explain a lot of the issues you're having with this. The fact that GMs are using this stuff should tell you something though.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

        Obviously a 19-11 ACC team is better than a 19-11 SWAC team, everyone knows that, and that's not my point.

        My point is, how much better? A lot? A little? Just a tad?

        Then you get into how to statistically categorizing them. How many more points is 'a lot' better worth? Or how many more points is 'a little' worth?

        There's no set chart that tells us, so the numbers are made out to what HE wants them to be, not what they are. HOLLINGER determines which team is better, and by how much they are better, so in reality HE controls how many points each player gets.

        Yes, height does matter, but so does wingspan. Is that factored in?

        The fact that GMs draft busts every year tells me something too. That judging a player takes skill. Obviously they aren't looking at this chart and crossing people off because Hollinger says they aren't going to mount much.

        GMs in football use the Wonderlic test too, but how good has that been to determine how good a football player is going to be?

        You can stand by him and his big pile of crap, and draft Matt Howard while I laugh my way home with Eric Gordon.

        Short and to the point: His so called stats are manipulated into what he wants them to say because you can't rate the difference between opponents nor can you rate the difference between the ACC and the SWAC. There is no point value for averaging 19pts in the ACC against scoring 19 against the MAC either, or the Big Ten or whatever conference.

        They're unmeasurable stats that he's placing a number too. They aren't stats, because they aren't MEASURABLE.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Obviously a 19-11 ACC team is better than a 19-11 SWAC team, everyone knows that, and that's not my point.

          My point is, how much better? A lot? A little? Just a tad?

          Then you get into how to statistically categorizing them. How many more points is 'a lot' better worth? Or how many more points is 'a little' worth?

          There's no set chart that tells us, so the numbers are made out to what HE wants them to be, not what they are. HOLLINGER determines which team is better, and by how much they are better, so in reality HE controls how many points each player gets.

          Yes, height does matter, but so does wingspan. Is that factored in?

          The fact that GMs draft busts every year tells me something too. That judging a player takes skill. Obviously they aren't looking at this chart and crossing people off because Hollinger says they aren't going to mount much.

          GMs in football use the Wonderlic test too, but how good has that been to determine how good a football player is going to be?

          You can stand by him and his big pile of crap, and draft Matt Howard while I laugh my way home with Eric Gordon.

          Short and to the point: His so called stats are manipulated into what he wants them to say because you can't rate the difference between opponents nor can you rate the difference between the ACC and the SWAC. There is no point value for averaging 19pts in the ACC against scoring 19 against the MAC either, or the Big Ten or whatever conference.

          They're unmeasurable stats that he's placing a number too. They aren't stats, because they aren't MEASURABLE.
          Now we're getting somewhere. The issue is either that you don't understand what Hollinger is measuring or that you don't like the results.

          Gordon's comparison is harsh right now, but it's been mentioned over and over again that the sample size is small being at mid-year. No forecasting system is perfect. Why is he projected to perform so poorly:

          You can't measure "athleticism" for 2500 college players. You can't even measure it for 2 players, so you need to measure stats that suggest athleticism: offensive rebounds, blocks, and steals. Gordon compares poorly to those at his position, at his height, who have gone on to NBA success. It might be the system IU runs, but generally, the players who have gone on to the most NBA success find ways to accumulate these stats no matter what system they're in. You can't measure "system", so it's easy for people to make excuses and say, "Well, that's not his job. It's the system. He's the greatest thing since the Pope."

          Here are the guiding principles of the projection piece:

          1-You can only measure items for that you can observe and/or have information. Box score stats, height, age, various ratios of box score stats, and team strength of schedule (like Sagarin). The measurements aren't available for wingspan. You can't measure "athleticism" so you look at things that suggest "athleticism" described earlier.

          2-The forecaster doesn't determine weights. He tests history to identify trend lines (best fit regression lines) and applies the same trend lines to the future. The math (slope) determines how much weight to apply to each variable. Suggesting that Hollinger makes this up is the most indisputably wrong misconception you've posted. AJ Graves plays Y better against teams that are X Sagarin points worse than Butler. He playes Y worse against teams that are X Sagarin points better than Butler. You can measure how much better based upon history. Do this for every player in college basketball since 1995, and you've got a decent adjustment for opponent quality.

          3-History doesn't guarantee future prediction success. I can make a bold statement like, "August 15 this year will be warmer than April 15" and I will probably be correct. It could also be 45 and rainy on August 15th this year.

          4-Stats aren't everything. This is just one tool, and Hollinger is forced to present it in a simple format for the masses on ESPN rather than getting into the nitty gritty. There are sample size issues. Some baseball guys recently used a system called PECOTA to make projections on future player performance. The rosters of these projections were used to estimate next season's Ws and Ls. They beat Vegas lines. Hollinger works closely with these guys.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

            ..blah...
            Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post

              The fact that GMs draft busts every year tells me something too. That judging a player takes skill. Obviously they aren't looking at this chart and crossing people off because Hollinger says they aren't going to mount much.
              You're missing the whole point of college stats like these. They don't tell you who to pick or who not to pick. They tell you who to take close looks at.

              Stats are tools, and anyone that doesn't look at them is foolish, just as anyone that goes only by stats is foolish.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                I think Gordon is a top 5 caliber draft pick. It is true his stats dropped when the competition got tougher. But a lot of that is due to the IU being a relatively young team. OK DJ White is a Senior but the rest of the cast is Freshman, Sophs, and Jr. College transfers. You can see it when they play. They make lots of mistakes. Without Gordon they would be lucky to have won a game in the Big 10. Gordon has a lot of court sense though at times he tries to do to much. He is an incredible shooter. I think he will be able to play PG in the NBA and think he will be comaprable to Deron Williams. I wouldn't take him before Beasley and maybe not Rose. But if you are looking for a PG, I'd draft Gordon in a heartbeat after that. Beasley, Rose, Mayo, Love, and Gordon are a new fab five Frosh. They are just on different teams.

                DJ White is a very strong fundamental player and has developed the strength to play in the NBA. I wonder if he is to slow to play in the NBA though. He definately can't run the court at NBA speed. He has developed a nice mid range jumper but does he have the quickness to get the open shot. The Pacers should pass on him in the 1st round. He might available in the 2nd and would be an interesting pick there.

                Living in Austin these days, i must say DJ Augustine is a very good PG. If he comes out, and the Pacers are drafting around 15, he would be nice pick if available.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  You're missing the whole point of college stats like these. They don't tell you who to pick or who not to pick. They tell you who to take close looks at.

                  Stats are tools, and anyone that doesn't look at them is foolish, just as anyone that goes only by stats is foolish.
                  If GM's/scouts need John Hollinger to tell them who they need to watch, then they shouldn't have a job and won't have one for long.

                  They have whole departments that only scout college/foreign players. They don't spend their time with the actual NBA players. I would bet the farm they have a better handle on who is out there and what they're capable of doing, more so than a guy who sits at his computer and crunches stats instead of actually watching basketball.

                  ESPN is more entertainment than it is breaking down sports, and that's how I view the whole company. I watch/read ESPN to get quick wrap-ups, not to learn anything new. Outside of quotes from coaches or GMs, do you actually learn something about the game?

                  They may break trades and that sort of stuff but their analysis of sports in general is lacking. Sorry I don't get behind ESPN and their NBA coverage because all I would learn is that shouting like SAS does is the way to prove a point.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X