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

Who is our "second best player"?

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

  • #31
    Re: Who is our "second best player"?

    Originally posted by JGray View Post
    I said a HEALTHY Dunleavy. A HEALTHY Dunleavy is a decent, intelligent defender that is an ace on offense and is capable of great percentages.
    A healthy Dunleavy is certainly a great offensive asset, but he will always be the weak link in defense, unless he is playing with Murphy and Hibbert, then it becomes a toss up on who is really the worst =/

    SF is a tough spot to have as your defensive weak link, but whatever, as long as he is the only truly bad spot they can cover for him.

    The problem is we have Murph as an even worse defensive weak link, and Hibbert as well, who is the natural weak link at Center. Playing those guys together is just wrong. Anyone should be able to see that. (hello Jim?)

    If we had, for instance, Okafur at center, and Dale Davis at PF, then the offensive minded folks on this board could have a good case for Dunleavy being the 2nd best player on the team. Alas, we do not have those players. And as much as we want him to be so good, he is not with the players our coach Jim puts on the court.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Who is our "second best player"?

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I've been digging around for Quarter by Quarter stats and finally found a site. This is a couple years old, but shows Troy Murphy's declining production as the game moves toward crunch time. Rebounds, FG%, 3%, everything slides....as I always knew intuitively.
      http://www.82games.com/QTR3S11.HTM
      Source 82games.com

      I think this is going in my sig...


      QtrGmMin+/-FgaFg%3p%FtaFt%PtsAst'dRebAst
      175638533.40.4510.3941.184%4.372%2.20.6
      273538-732.40.4140.40.673%2.772%1.90.7
      37551282.40.5280.483180%3.778%1.80.5
      461417-451.40.40.2980.673%1.882%1.70.6
      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      I would love to see a chart from this year, I imagine it is much more drastic
      You have imagined wrong.

      SI charts all stats by quarter and Troy Murphy's PPQ are indeed the lowest in the 4th, but the disparity is not nearly as pronounced as the previous chart you're showing (which was from 2007-08) and obviously dealing with a smaller sample size since Troy has only played in 26 games this year so far compared to 60+ in that other chart.

      This year, he has scored 3.2 points per 4th quarter vs. 4.2 points per 1st quarter.

      SI unfortunately doesn't chart FGA per quarter but we know he must be shooting a little less late because his FG% and 3P% are off the charts good by any metric during the 4th yet his points are slightly lower.

      So, thus far this year, he has, in similar minutes, shot less but with much more accuracy in the 4th quarter than at any other point in the game while producing slightly fewer points. And we should all note that 54.3% shooting at any point is simply stellar for someone who primarily takes jumpshots.

      (It's also notable that he rebounds much better in the 1st quarter than at any other point in the game by a large margin. Can't really read anything into this without analyzing leaguewide numbers. It's possible that their are just a lot more missed shots at the beginning of games some everyone naturally has more boards early in the game or that people are the least tired early and that helps in getting rebounds. No way to tell what that means really.)

      SI has a boatload of more split stat breakdowns for Troy and everyone.

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...24/splits.html



      Green = Quarter he has the highest total
      Red = Quarter he has the lowest total
      Last edited by JayRedd; 01-10-2010, 03:15 AM.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Who is our "second best player"?

        Wow.. Thanks Jay, I must say I am quite surprised by the numbers, but the stats don't lie. 54% in the 4th is damn good, so is 45% from the 3.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Who is our "second best player"?

          if a.j. continues to play like he did against minnie...........he would be because of his ability to break down the defense and hit the open man so they can hopefully hit the open shot. thus making everyone else better..........and if he can do this effectively he can be just as if not more important to our offense than danny.

          p.s. before anyone says anything about his assist total in that game.......i watched the game and i saw at least 3-4 passes he made to give guys wide open shots and they missed them.
          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Who is our "second best player"?

            Nice post Jay. I am surprised his FG% is that good in the 4th. However, his rebounds and overall production indicate that he's getting out-huscled for boards and shut down offensively as the game moves toward "winning time".

            Considering his minutes are highest in the 4th, that indicates he is accomplishing less in the 4th quarter than any other quarter....not exactly a shining example of a guy who helps you win games when the chips are down.

            Edit: btw, I understand that lower rebounds may be due to the flow of the game or other factors...but dropping from 3.2 to 2.2 is over a 30% drop. I would be surprised if that was completely due to less opportunities...but I don't know that.
            Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-10-2010, 02:12 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Who is our "second best player"?

              I did my own ratings where I tried to come up with 5-6 categories on each side of the ball, and weighted their value (so On ball Defense is very important but steals or fouling aren't as important). Totally subjective I'll admit, but then everything in the thread is anyway.

              I have Hibbert as #2, but I also have Rush as #3 and Price as #4.

              However on offense only I had Roy as #1, Price as #2 and Troy as #3. Price fared well with passing, the screen/PnR/spacing game, and TOs. Roy fared well for FGA/shot selection (tied them together, Troy was 2nd in that category), pretty good in OReb, very good in passing, very good in FTAs (draws them and makes them, Tyler clearly first there). Troy was good in FGA/seletion and 3P shooting, but slightly low in all the other categories (passing, FTA, TOs, OReb, PnR/spacing)


              For the record I had Tyler as slightly above McBob on offense, but below him on defense. I had Granger pretty far down the list on offense due to the 3PA level, passing, Oreb, TOs and spacing game. If he had his offense balanced more he'd rate much higher, but was still the overall #1 anyway.

              My lowest offensive guys were Solo, Ford and then Dahntay. McBob and Rush came right after them.


              The main thing I ended up with is that I didn't rate any of the offensive players as really strong, but I did have Granger, Rush, Dahntay and McBob as strong defenders, and Roy, Tyler and Solo as pretty good.

              I rate DJones highest in the on-ball and awareness categories, but he's not really a factor at the rim or on DEF rebounds. Plus he doesn't really get a ton of steals and fouls at a high'ish rate.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                Roy Hibbert when JOS remembers that he's on the team.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  However, his rebounds and overall production indicate that he's getting out-huscled for boards and shut down offensively as the game moves toward "winning time".
                  Your "out-huscled" comments seems like a leap in logic to me, but OK.

                  And I'm not sure making shots with much more regularity can be construed as being "shut down" offensively.

                  In scoring 1 fewer point in the 4th than he does in the 1st (and only 0.3 points and 0.7 points less than he scores in the 3rd and 1st quarters, respectively), all that likely means is that he is attempting approximately 1 fewer shot in the 4th than in the 1st. There are dozens of ways to explain why that might be, but I don't think having 1 fewer FGA in a quarter could reasonably be described as being "shut down."

                  The fact that he scores his most points in the 1st on his worst FG% likely can be best described as him "taking a lot of shots early." Whether that is just his natural inclination or whether perhaps JO'B designs a play or two early to try to get him a three or two to spread the floor for the rest of the game is not something I think any of us can be sure.

                  In sum, all we honestly deduce from this data is that he takes more shots early than he does late and he is much more efficient late than he is early.

                  You can "indicate" all you want, but the data does not indicate anything about hustling.
                  Last edited by JayRedd; 01-10-2010, 04:22 PM.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Considering his minutes are highest in the 4th, that indicates he is accomplishing less in the 4th quarter than any other quarter....not exactly a shining example of a guy who helps you win games when the chips are down.
                    Also, the minute-per-quarter differentials are not particularly significant mathematically. His "higher minutes" in the 4th is the difference of 36 seconds from the 2nd quarter and 6 seconds from the 1st quarter.

                    36 seconds is probably one extra possession. So you really shouldn't expect him to be accomplishing a ton more in 36 more seconds.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Also, the minute-per-quarter differentials are not particularly significant mathematically. His "higher minutes" in the 4th is the difference of 36 seconds from the 2nd quarter and 6 seconds from the 1st quarter.

                      36 seconds is probably one extra possession. So you really shouldn't expect him to be accomplishing a ton more in 36 more seconds.
                      The point of this thread is not whether he's better offensively in the first or fourth. It's that he's bad defensively in both.

                      And he's not "our second best player." Far from it.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                        Sorry to disrupt the point of the thread with information.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                          Since I had Price rated so high I decided to double check my opinion. I pulled the JAN per48 split to get a sense of recent play.

                          Price leads the team in assists at 10.0, Watson is at 9.4 and then Hibbert at 6.1, which backs my high rating on their passing.

                          Scoring - Granger leads but Price is 2nd at 29.5 and Roy is 3rd at 28.3.

                          eFG% for JAN - Troy is at 75% (whoa, lotta 3 makes), Josh is 2nd at 63% (in line with a PF that sometimes hits a 3, all PFs tend to run 55% or more), and then Price is at 55%. Then you've got Hibbert at 49% and Rush at 48% (and Diener at 50% but that's really limited PT).

                          So in fact Roy and Price are basically the 2 best offensive players the team has right now, not only scoring well like Troy but also as big playmakers for others to work off of.

                          BTW, the worst AST per48 for JAN? Solo, Josh (both under 2.0) and then Danny and Troy at 2.1. Think about their usage level and how much they touch the ball. Think about all the 3PA they take. And they are getting ONE assist every 24 minutes? Ugh.

                          Danny and Watson are both rocking 41% eFG for last on the team. Also ugh.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            Sorry to disrupt the point of the thread with information.


                            Can't we all just get along. Especially people that probably don't really disagree on the situation very much.

                            Troy is without a doubt a great shooting weapon. That's the full extent of his serious offensive contributions. Add in his defensive penalty and it kills his chance at "2nd best".

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              Sorry to disrupt the point of the thread with information.
                              It's funny how that works. Facts I mean. I have the feeling that nothing will convince BG or Mckey that they are wrong about Troy. Troy is evil and nothing will change their minds.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Who is our "second best player"?

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


                                Can't we all just get along. Especially people that probably don't really disagree on the situation very much.

                                Troy is without a doubt a great shooting weapon. That's the full extent of his serious offensive contributions. Add in his defensive penalty and it kills his chance at "2nd best".
                                Just your opinion, doesn't make it true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X