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

So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

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

  • #46
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

    Awards update:

    Originally posted by count55
    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - There have been no Rookies of the Year during this time frame. About 15% of the players taken between 12 and 17 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 16 draftees in this group, or about 10%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 10 (6%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 6% (10) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Eight of these (5%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just seven players in this group (5%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), all of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, Clyde Drexler is the only player that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Surprisingly, three players (Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and Karl Malone) have been named league MVP. Our beloved Ron-Ron is the lone Defensive Player of the Year. There have been three Sixth Man of the Years (Dell Curry, Aaron McKie, and Corliss Williamson), and five Most Improved Players (Dana Barros, Jalen Rose, Alan Henderson, Jermaine O'Neal, and Hedo Turkoglu). There have been no Finals MVP.
    Brandon did not earn any awards, but Kobe Bryant added a 1st Team All-NBA, a 1st Team All-Defense, and an All Star appearance to the list of accolades earned by #13's.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

      For defensive statistics, you' would have to chart every possession, including denials, shots defended, turnovers forces, ya da, ya da, ya da. You would reach a point where you'd almost be judging them, like gymnasts, which is problematic to me because of bias, self-fulfilling prophesy, and inconsistency among stat keepers.
      But the issue is that we are stepping behind the curtain anyway here - assists are SUBJECTIVE. Yet we accept them as one of the 3 major stats. It's long been noted that assists vary from arena to arena, from scorekeeper to scorekeeper.

      And frankly rebounding is as well. You'd have to yank up the Foster rant I went on from I guess 2 years ago in Denver. Foster gets 18-19 boards and half of PD lifts him as the greatest thing ever. Having watched the game I couldn't agree; several of his boards became empty putbacks or were off of his own close misses.

      (please note - at this point I found myself lumped in with the anti-Foster crowd which wasn't my intent, and that sucked. I think Foster is great and at times underappreciated. I simply have a need for fairness and that night Foster wasn't all that special.)

      Anyway, I went to the Tivo and watched all of his credited rebounds. What I found was that at least 3-4 of them weren't anything close to what I'd call a rebound. At one point he swiped at the ball in a scrum, he caught it slightly, it bounced randomly off and a Pacers player happened to grab it. Rebound Foster.

      This was not a controlled tip back. This was "hmm, well technically he touched it...". It was painfully subjective and not an instance that I would credit him with the rebound.


      This is the issue. Assists, rebounds to a lesser extent, and steals too are all subjective. Who caused it, does it qualify for the stat, etc are decisions made by the scorekeepers. And these are fundamental stats, not outliers.


      Considering the fact that fouls are subjective and have a big impact on stats (and the game), I think the hard truth is that we just need to accept that some of these defensive measures are going to be flawed.

      But as Simmons points out, he knows via his contacts (like Morey in Houston for one) that some teams are taking the time to track these stats and feel comfortable in acting upon what they indicate.

      Games would need to be rewatched for professional stat keeping, but that's already happening. It's just not being done by the league itself or any other publically available reporting agency other than a few places like 82Games.com.


      I think there is utility in per 36 numbers, but you have to be careful about the law of diminishing returns.
      If only more people around here understood this ENTIRE sentence, rather than just arguing one extreme of it or the other.

      A) Ike is god, look at his per minute.
      B) Per minute is the most worthless stat ever.

      And worse yet is that the B people will take PPG at face value despite it needing more qualification than any stat out there, unless 9 for 34 for 20 points somehow became a good thing.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

        Thanks for the median graph. Considering that Rush basically saw minutes right off the bat I think it's one of his more positive stats. He easily could have amassed most of his numbers up front and then faded a bit.

        A guy that doesn't get to play who weights toward the 2nd half sure, but I'm guessing his total minutes played median is left of his PR median (hint ).

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

          Fans shouldn't get carried away with Brandon's late season numbers. Playing most of the season as a brick heaver, teams were all but ignoring him when he spotted up. I can recall several threes he nailed when the defender wasn't in his zip code. If he establishes that he can shoot, he's not going to get as many wide open looks.

          To get to 15ppg, he's going to have to do some damage off the dribble. Not necessarily to the rim, but a pull up mid ranger or a floater needs to be added to his arsenal.

          I'd be really pleased if he played strong D, got 12ppg or so, and showed something new he added over the summer. If he can hit a reasonable percentage, it will be harder to roll his defender onto Danny.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Thanks for the median graph. Considering that Rush basically saw minutes right off the bat I think it's one of his more positive stats. He easily could have amassed most of his numbers up front and then faded a bit.

            A guy that doesn't get to play who weights toward the 2nd half sure, but I'm guessing his total minutes played median is left of his PR median (hint ).
            Your guess was right:



            Though I think the chart in Post #40 does at least as good of a job of representing the message you're sending.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

              I agree, though it's nice to see it as a continuous graph rather than a histogram style.

              What surprises me is that his minutes median looks to still be right of the halfway mark. The gap isn't as big as I suspect it was. I didn't realize his PT took such a jump late in the season (though #40 clearly shows that too).



              Danman - I guess my issue with your post is that Rush was most successful per minute when teams were most aware of him. Early on when he was ignored he still failed to produce at the level he was even after a few good games to get people's attention.

              Your point would be more fitting if he took off hot and then faded as teams got a clue.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                I agree, though it's nice to see it as a continuous graph rather than a histogram style.
                The problem with a continuous curve is that it smooths things a little too much for this specific discussion.

                Originally posted by seth
                What surprises me is that his minutes median looks to still be right of the halfway mark. The gap isn't as big as I suspect it was. I didn't realize his PT took such a jump late in the season (though #40 clearly shows that too).
                He reached his median minutes in team game #51, which was his 44th appearance (out of 75 games, or 59%). In his first 44 games, he had an average PR of 6.2 in about 20.5 minutes a night. In his last 31 games, he had an average PR of 12.8 in about 28.9 minutes. That's about a 94% increase in production in only a 41% increase in minutes.


                Originally posted by seth
                Danman - I guess my issue with your post is that Rush was most successful per minute when teams were most aware of him. Early on when he was ignored he still failed to produce at the level he was even after a few good games to get people's attention.

                Your point would be more fitting if he took off hot and then faded as teams got a clue.
                There are pluses and minuses to danman's point. He's right in trying to keep Brandon's performance in perspective. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the 18.8 ppg he averaged in his final 12 starts to be representative of what he can do. However, I think this characterization:

                Originally posted by danman
                Fans shouldn't get carried away with Brandon's late season numbers. Playing most of the season as a brick heaver, teams were all but ignoring him when he spotted up. I can recall several threes he nailed when the defender wasn't in his zip code. If he establishes that he can shoot, he's not going to get as many wide open looks.
                is too dismissive. Also, as an anecdotal explanation, it doesn't match the impression that I had, which is that Brandon's scoring came not so much from open threes, but from finally hitting that catch-and-shoot curl (the Calbert Cheaney shot) and from getting better at finishing at the basket. Of course, both are just recollections, and mine carry no more weight than his.

                Statistically, there's no question his three point shooting did improve. In his final 12 games, he shot 44% from beyond the arc, vs. 35% in his first 63 games. However, three pointers went down as a % of his total shots (from 38% to 33%) and as a percent of his total points scored (from 40% to 34%). Where he really shined was on 2 pt shots, increasing his success rate from 38% to 58%.

                The real area of concern for Brandon is his ability to get to the line. Over the course of the season, he only took 1 FTA for every 8.7 FGA's. Of the 220 players who averaged 20 minutes or more per game, only 5 had a worse ratio. Even more concerning, that ratio jump to over 16 FGA's for every FTA during his final 12 games. It is this that makes his scoring fragile.

                So, while I agree that Brandon needs to add tools to his game to be able to repeat his March/April scoring, I don't think you can just write his performance off to the defense just ignoring him. It takes an awful lot of ignorance (on the part of the defense) to let a guy get 19 points a game.
                Last edited by count55; 05-26-2009, 02:48 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                  Eh, I don't think teams ever paid any mind to Rush. His defender sluffed off to help elsewhere all through the season.

                  I don't discount his shooting... He came in with a shooting rep. The improvement there was real. And long before his shooting improved, he figured out where and when to spot up in our offense.

                  That said, he's not going to score 15ppg with no threat to dribble into traffic, no threat off getting fouled. He'll turn into another James Jones.

                  Not saying he won't do it. I just didn't see it last year.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X