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? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

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

  • So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

    Ok, this is really just me putzing around. I may use this thread to play some games with Danny and where he stands. I may let it die entirely.

    In any case, Santa just left the house, and I can't quite sleep, so I'll give you this little nugget in your stocking:



    Essentially, this tracks the yearly AdjPR for Danny and charts it against some other players taken at the same #17 slot: Josh Smith, Jermaine O'Neal, Shawn Kemp, and Rasho Nesterovic. In hard numbers, Danny is tracking well above everyone else in this sample.

    It should be noted that this year's numbers were through 12/15, and Josh Smith was being downgraded this season due to an extended absence from the lineup. However, on GrossPR, Danny is posting a 25.4 per game through 12/23, while Josh Smith is only at 17.8.

    Now, as I said, if this thread becomes anything, it will probably be a place to try to quantify what Danny is doing comparative to others. Once again, I remind people that this is strictly a statistical formula for production, not a means to say that a player is "better" than another.

    However, Danny is a very productive player right now. In fact, through last night's game, he is 8th in the league in Gross PR at 25.4.

    Like I said, this is just the first cocktail napkin analysis I've done. Thought some might be interested.

    Merry Xmas.

  • #2
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

    Merry Xmas!

    I hate that you have to qualify "it's just an analysis..." and so on around here. I call BS and say that your numbers are easily as valid as any other opinion. We know the limitations of the PR (well, some of us do) and it's the same as any other measure. It's not stats, it's the WHICH STATS are important in quantifying a player.

    As I always remind people, total wins and total losses are also stats. Winning PCT is a stat.


    Anyway, to DG. Let's put Pippen up there too even though he's not a 17 pick simply to act as a measuring stick on what that kind of PR means. Plus the fact that Pippen had a very similar growth curve to Danny's, at least so far.

    One problem we have is that 2 of these guys were HS players which is why they went lower in the draft. If they'd had just 1-2 years of NCAA to prove themselves out then they would have been picked much higher AND they would have started off with higher PRs too you would expect. I mean JO barely got to play early on.

    Another thing that stinks here is that Kemp and JO both fell off rather unexpectedly and probably don't track like a normal star player does. We know JO's health but we should remember that Kemp's fall was shocking too and due to his own approach to the game, something I don't think DG is going to have a problem with.

    With those things in mind DG's early PR tracking is just nuts. What he is right now, not in the future, is a massive steal at 17. I'd even say he's a better pick than Reggie at 11 in terms of bang for buck.

    There is no way you can consider Danny the expected value at that pick, even in a deep draft. That's a guy that a GM just has to know is under the radar before he moves to acquire that pick. Normal 17 picks just aren't that valuable.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

      When Danny was drafted I thought he could be a 18 ppg, 5rpg player with very solid D, a steal at pick number 17 in any circumstance. Needless to say, I'm pleasantly surprised by his continuing improvement, and I think Danny deserves the credit for that as he has remained committed to improving his game every year.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Merry Xmas!
        Backatcha

        Originally posted by Seth
        I hate that you have to qualify "it's just an analysis..." and so on around here. I call BS and say that your numbers are easily as valid as any other opinion. We know the limitations of the PR (well, some of us do) and it's the same as any other measure. It's not stats, it's the WHICH STATS are important in quantifying a player.

        As I always remind people, total wins and total losses are also stats. Winning PCT is a stat.
        Two things.

        First, I always feel the need to recognize the shortfalls in any statistical analysis at the top of the page. It's been drilled into me in my professional life, and I consider it to be good practice. Also, it helps limit the time wasted arguing over the math.

        Second, I will also qualify analyses as "Cocktail Napkin" when I haven't quite decided what they mean. I threw this particular one together in about 15 minutes, so I haven't reached all my conclusions yet. This is also a habit from professional life, where my final decisions often have consequences in the form of people's jobs.

        Originally posted by Seth
        Anyway, to DG. Let's put Pippen up there too even though he's not a 17 pick simply to act as a measuring stick on what that kind of PR means. Plus the fact that Pippen had a very similar growth curve to Danny's, at least so far.
        Ask, and ye shall receive, though I am still not endorsing the Danny=Scottie proposition.



        Originally posted by Seth
        One problem we have is that 2 of these guys were HS players which is why they went lower in the draft. If they'd had just 1-2 years of NCAA to prove themselves out then they would have been picked much higher AND they would have started off with higher PRs too you would expect. I mean JO barely got to play early on.

        Another thing that stinks here is that Kemp and JO both fell off rather unexpectedly and probably don't track like a normal star player does. We know JO's health but we should remember that Kemp's fall was shocking too and due to his own approach to the game, something I don't think DG is going to have a problem with.

        With those things in mind DG's early PR tracking is just nuts. What he is right now, not in the future, is a massive steal at 17. I'd even say he's a better pick than Reggie at 11 in terms of bang for buck.

        There is no way you can consider Danny the expected value at that pick, even in a deep draft. That's a guy that a GM just has to know is under the radar before he moves to acquire that pick. Normal 17 picks just aren't that valuable.
        There's absolutely no question in my mind that Danny was a spectacular value at #17, as was Josh Smith. It is certainly a possibility, if not a likelihood, that one of those two players could prove to be the best player ever taken 17th.

        That being said, the arcs of Shawn Kemp and Jermaine O'Neal could simply speak of the flaws inherent in a player taken in the mid-late first round. They are on here because they are clearly the best players in the group to this point.

        Seth, you may want to take a look at the Roy Hibbert/17 thread I posted, as well. It will tell you how bleak that slot has been.
        Last edited by count55; 12-25-2008, 11:16 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

          Fanoodling? We're fishing for Danny Granger's catfish using only our fingers?
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Fanoodling? We're fishing for Danny Granger's catfish using only our fingers?
            Never heard of that usage...I was just engaging in a little *******ized onomatopoeia.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

              Ask, and ye shall receive, though I am still not endorsing the Danny=Scottie proposition.
              Of course not. I'll let the math and reality do that.

              It's pretty amazing how closely they've tracked so far. Look, I'm the big numbers geek here so I didn't go with this Pip thing on gut or because I'm up Danny's rear. I keep checking on the numbers and they just keep tracking. The more they do the more I lock into this mantra.

              But even if Pip's curve was far different I simply requested it here for a general gauge of a more appropriate and obviously more often compared player.


              Seth, you may want to take a look at the Roy Hibbert/17 thread I posted, as well. It will tell you how bleak that slot has been.
              I just haven't had the time (thus no prospect thread entries either despite the team's increased losing) but even without seeing it yet I know. I went over this stuff with those other draft position stat studies I brought up before and my own research back with the Shawne pick for one, and just in general discussions on how to build a team.


              As I said, I think you have to consider HS players as always undervalued due to the higher risk of them panning out. Thus Kemp and JO probably could have been top 10 picks and might have started their PRs at about year 3 of what they really did - thus less "growth" from them several years into their career.

              The kind of slower development that we've seen with Pip and Danny is the oddity I think. For example I think Rush is a consistent shot, a bit few TOs/fouls, and a slight bump up in everything else away from being "topped out". He'll see his PR go up, but nowhere near what Danny did.

              Although I'd love to be wrong about that one.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

                More playing around. Here are Danny's first four years charted:



                The two things that strike me are: (a) the big leap he has made with each season, and (b) how steady he has been throughout the course of each season (excluding his Rookie year).

                Here are a couple of other looks:



                This shows the comparative months for each year. What I find encouraging about this chart is that each corresponding month shows improvement from the prior year. For example, Oct-Nov 2009 (season) was better than Oct-Nov 2008, which, in turn was better than 2007, which was better than 2006.

                Then there is another look at the same info:



                In this, you can perhaps see the "rookie wall" in 2006, and the struggle to get through the doldrums of March in 2007 (which was one of the worst Pacer months on record at 2-14). However, he finished April of 2007 very strongly, and the second half of last year was outstanding.

                (A note on December 2009: Since these are "Adjusted PR", they are downgraded for the games he missed. His Gross PR was actually higher in December than Oct/Nov, but he missed two games due to the flu, and therefore only had an 86% Reliability Factor.)

                Finally, I'm starting to chart a couple of things. The first item is Assists vs. Turnovers:



                While Danny still makes too many turnovers, there is no question that he's made huge strides in this area over the course of this season. As is obvious from the chart, Danny was "upside down" on Assists vs. TO's early in the season. However, he's more than doubled his Assist-to-Turnover Ratio in December/January, go from 0.72 to 1.59, bringing his year-to-date numbers just over 1.1. While this is not spectacular, the Dec/Jan figures would put him in the 60th percentile of players who log 20 minutes or more per game.

                It will take some time, but I'm also looking at Danny's 4th quarter performance. 82games.com lists Granger as the 4th highest scoring player in the 4th quarter in the league. Danny averages 7.2 points, which only trails LeBron James, Brandon Roy, and Dwyane Wade. I want to look inside those numbers so that I can understand what makes them up, but that will probably take a few days. The data isn't particularly user-friendly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Sidebar # 1 - Danny Granger fanoodling)

                  Please keep 'em coming!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X