Tweet
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
NOPE!
NOPE!
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.
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
-
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Update on games through 12/23:
Brandon has played in four games since my last analysis. He has started all four, the first as part of a small lineup to match up with Golden State, the next three due to Marquis Daniels' illness. The Pacers are 2-2 in those games, defeating Golden State and Philly, losing tough games to the Clippers and the Nets.
As you can see from the charts, Brandon brought his AdjPR up to 8.36. Over this four game stretch, his AdjPR was a very impressive 16.5. His game against the Nets helped mightily, as it was a 30 PR game, but the three games previous averaged 12.0. He scored relatively well, averaging just over 14 points per game, but his rebounding was very good at over 7 a game, and he averaged just under 2 steals per game in this stretch.
The negatives were clearly his shooting, as he shot only 35% in this stretch. However, he finished strong in this regard. After shooting only 9 of 39 in the first two games, he shot 4 of 9 against Philly, and a very impressive 8 of 12 (should've been 9 of 12 or 8 of 11, with FT's if they called that blatant foul on Vince Carter, but, I digress.)
At this point, Brandon is very productive for a #13 pick. He shows signs of being an excellent basketball player, but he needs to become more consistent, particularly in shooting. If he were to work out his shooting woes and learn how to be a smarter, more effective defender (right now, he's just living on his size and athleticism), he definitely has the tools to be a good starting shooting guard.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
These posts are just simply amazing, count55. Thanks for sharing.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
These posts make me feel so very inadequate.
But I love reading them anyway.
Thanks again, Count!“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill
“If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine AirdComment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Good stuff though I guess I have a problem with this:
You label those the flops but in that group you have Julian Wright who's just 21 and just entering his second season, Sefolosha who's 24 and just entering his 3rd season and Sean May who's just entering his 3rd season coming off a major injury and last year, when healthy, was an 11 and 7 player.Group 5: Thabo Sefolosha, Marcus Banks, Jeff Grayer, Pearl Washington, Ennis Whatley, Joe Wolf, Julian Wright, Courtney Alexander
Group 6: Sean May, Michael Smith, Marcus Haislip
I'd argue against calling any of them flops at this point but Wright in particular - IMO putting him in that category is ridiculous.
Love the trendlines though. Really good.The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Well the fizzlers have some guys who didn't get to play right away and saw that small games out of whack PR that even your normal guys had in the first weeks of the season. Then beyond that we are just now hitting that point where they started some surprisingly steady curves downward.
I would say that given what we have seen from Rush so far and his trending that this is not realistic to expect (the sloping off I mean). As mentioned, he struggled to get PT at times and hit that benching.
Rush is with a coach that's been less reluctant to just run the young guys out there and he's still been able to earn good minutes most of the time. He's not expected to be the main scorer and he's not devalued like Kobe was by being a HS player. Most of the top guys showed that they rather quickly found their range, and then in some cases started to slowly trend upward.
I think Rush is going to push into the 4 category for sure simply because nothing he's done so far is remarkably different from what he showed at Kansas last year. He is playing "his" game except that his shooting has been slightly off. And it certainly appears that he is still GAINING JOB's confidence rather than splashing on the scene in a big way only to fizzle a bit.
One note about the fizzle point - consider the length of the NCAA season and that 25-30 games is when you'd start to be wrapping it up. I can see Brandon, like many players, hitting that wall where they realize they aren't even halfway done yet.
I have to hand it to JOB, Rush was seeing his numbers drop consistently after hitting 2 peak games and it seems like maybe the DNP did kick his game in it's rear.
Count - I love the season long trending. That's the real stuff to put things in perspective.
Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Goldfoot's post is the best one yet on the "value" of top picks. As I've said before, of course winning teams have a top pick on the roster. ALL TEAMS HAVE A TOP PICK on the roster. Top 5-10 guys linger in the NBA longer. Dunleavy is a top 5 pick, so when the Pacers win it all we can point to Dun as the answer.
Typically winners are built on lucky losing/drafting, getting that magic can't miss pick (didn't need a #1 to get Jordan or Bird BTW) or brilliant trading. It's better to get the guy after someone else has found out he's not a bust than to risk your own pick.
SMART drafting is the real key if you want to build that way and the Pacers proved you didn't need really high picks to do that. Smits was important but they could have won games without him too, maybe not as much but they would have been good just with Jax, Reggie, Detlef, Dale, Tank (if you keep Det as the #2 scorer without Rik on the team).
Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View PostComment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
I think the current Blazers are the perfect example of brilliant management and also a little luck. They made some tremendous moves to walk away with the two best players in one draft (Roy, Aldridge), and then used some luck to have Oden fall into their laps. Getting a top five pick doesn't guarantee you anything, you hope management knows what they are doing, and let's be honest, a top five pick this year means even less considering the slim pickings up top.
Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Yes, I had noted in the original thread of this series (with the methodology) that some of the players were merely unfinished products. Basically, I labeled the categories as "flops" in (somewhat lazy) shorthand. Essentially, I was merely listing what the numbers were saying. (I also noted in the original thread (on the overall draft) that I tried to avoid rationalizing any numbers, being as arbitrary as possible. I needed to show the warts in order to make sure I had full disclosure for the reader. I agree with Hollinger in keeping the statistics relatively unadjusted, but where I differ with Hollinger is that I don't consider them to necessarily be "the whole truth".)Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
I'll buy that the jury is out on Sefolosha and Wright. They're just sitting there based on what they've done thus far. It remains to be seen what they can do. Sean May, third year notwithstanding, I strongly expect to finish his career exactly where he's sitting. He was somewhat short for his skills to begin with, and he's adding a weight problem and continued injuries (he's out indefinitely with tendonitis in his knee) to that problem.Last edited by count55; 12-25-2008, 08:30 PM.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
With an update through 12/30...
After having his best game of the season, Brandon has backslid, particularly the last two games. He's been very passive and ineffective.
As the graph indicates, another disturbing trend has developed. Brandon has strong games, I begin to say positive, optimistic things about him, followed by him going into a slump. Therefore, from this time forward, I will no longer say anything good about him.
Brandon Rush is a ninny, and his mother wears army boots.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Well, it's been awhile, but with the season complete, I wanted to update these. It's also a somewhat happy coincidence (for me) that we are likely to end up with the 13th pick in the draft. That should save some duplication of effort as I prepare for the draft.
Since it's been so long, I want to remind you all of the original methodology:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...38&postcount=1
and reiterate some disclaimers.
First, this is a measure of production that reasonable approximates contribution of the players included. However, this is not meant to be a definitive ranking of individual players, per se, but a grouping. I admit that I will use this as shorthand to comment on Brandon's performance, but I don't think that is being misleading. That is to say, I don't think the quantification here conflicts with the general perception and judgment of Brandon's performance and production.
Again, for better, more specific understanding of the methodology and the caveats, please read the earlier link.
Brandon's Rookie Year
Brandon appeared in 75 of the Pacers' 82 games. All seven of the games he missed were DNP-CD's. This is both good news and bad news. The bad news (worse to some than others) is that O'Brien chose to sit him for entire games, arguably hurting both his development and the team's chance to win. The good news is that he missed zero games due to injury. This is certainly welcome given the teams checkered past in this regard.
For the season, he averaged 8.1 points and 3.1 rebounds in 24 minutes per night. The scoring was good for the 12th highest rookie average this year, and the minutes were 13th most. Though he slumped for large portions of the year, his shooting over the last dozen games or so brought his full year shooting percentage to .423. He shot a very respectable .373 from beyond the arc on over 200 attempts. His FT shooting was disappointing, both in percentage (.697) and volume (less than 1 attempt per game).
On the Player Rater, he posted a full year gross number per game of 9.17, which translates to 8.39 AdjPR, which would classify him as a "Group 4" Player.
This would be about average for the types of careers that you get from the #13 pick. Nothing spectacular...a good solid bench player or borderline starter. Looking specifically at his rookie year, here's how it trended against some key benchmark players:Group 4 - Adj PR of 7 to 12 (246 players, 19.8% of sample). These are slightly above average producers. Some are starters, some injury prone all-star talent, some just good solid players. Examples include: Leandro Barbosa, Toni Kukoc, Paul Pressey, Kurt Thomas.
As you can see, the strong finish to Brandon's year brought him basically abreast of another Pacer taken at #13: Dale Davis. It also nudged him past Pearl Washington and into the 5th most productive rookie season in the sample.
Here are the #13 picks since 1986 for their rookie year, in descending order:
Here are some other looks at Brandon’s rookie year:
And a nice look at his performance by month:
Finally, what kind of careers do the #13 picks have? This chart shows all of them since 1982:
Kobe Bryant and Karl Malone are Group 1 players that should be considered outliers, particularly in the case of Kobe, who manipulated his draft position by threatening to play in Italy.
On the whole, you should be able to snare a decent career player, perhaps starter, with maybe a little All-Star potential. Keep in mind, this is where the slope gets steep...there is a 40% chance of a bust here, and you've got only about a one-in-four chance at getting a Group Three or better player. It drops to less than one-in-five if you throw out Kobe and the Mailman.
At this stage of the game, we should be pretty pleased with what we've gotten out of Brandon. I'll be putting together some analysis on what the #13 picks did in their second year. I also want to see about what other players who had rookie years similar to Brandon turned out to be.
I’m working on some other stuff, including an update on Roy, and hope to have more updates between now and the draft.Last edited by count55; 04-27-2009, 10:38 PM.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
Great work, as always count. I really enjoy reading your stuff. Two format suggestions, and a couple of general comments.
1. Figure numbers. I know it seems pretentious, but it's really really helpful in discussions. My next comment is about the one titled "Brandon with Individual Games" but it would be better if it was just "Figure 5." Force of habit, here.
2. On figure 5, instead of using game dates, use game numbers. Game 1, 2, 3, ... 82, etc. Going by dates on the X axis makes it hard to tell how things progressed, since the games aren't spaced evenly throughout the season.
3. Does Figure 7 have Brandon in there? Am I missing him?
4. I don't understand Figure 4. What am I looking at, here?
5. It's not feedback, but I really enjoy Figure 6. That's a great quant explanation of Brandon's season. Who was it that claimed Brandon had no room to grow? Poppycock... that's a great trendline. If he can carry that forward, we've got our SG for the next decade right there.This space for rent.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
I'll keep that in mind, but I may forget...Originally posted by Anthem View Post
This is problematic. The way I have my graph data set up, I use the date so that I can track the player, along with the team games played, and map him against other players. Keep in mind that I treat games not played as 0 value games.Originally posted by Anthem
No, he's not in it. In fact, that is from data that I did back in December, and it excludes 2009 data. I have to update it, but it's not going to change materially...Brandon's career data is the same as his rookie data.Originally posted by Anthem
It's essentially Brandon's tracking without all of the noise. It's one of my early charts, and I'm not sure it's a keeper.Originally posted by Anthem
I am not aware of who said Brandon had no room to grow.Originally posted by Anthem
There's very little question that Brandon took off late in the season. February was a nice recovery from the nadir of January...and then the shot came in late March and it was all over but the shouting.Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
My concern with your scheme is more philosophical. How do we incorporate the fact that Brandon and Dale played better defense in their rookie years than Derek Anderson and Jalen Rose ever did?Comment
-
Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)
You don't. It was never my intention to be perfect, and I don't believe that their is a good way to quantify defense, and I don't believe there is a good way to quantify team results.Originally posted by rexnom View Post
As I've mentioned, this is strictly production. This came up in the initial post of the full draft analysis, when Scottie Pippen failed to make Group 1. There will be outliers, but I think it is directionally correct.Comment
Comment