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

The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

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

  • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    Yep... watching the game is more important that figuring out how to manage the stats to tell whatever story you want to tell.
    Holy Cow Batman! FTW.

    Comment


    • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      The style of play has changed over the course of time...or perhaps how the game is called. I really think how the game is called compared to 20 years ago is different. What used to be physical play or hand checks are now called as fouls. It used to take a bone crushing blow in the paint to get a foul called...in some games. Now just a brush will do.
      And twenty years ago, everyone (except those in Detroit, of course) complained that the referees were swallowing their whistles and allowing traveling violations, palming, and fouls that weren't permited 30 and 40 years ago.

      It goes in cycles. The four-out hasn't been popular in the NBA in 25 years or so, but it sure isn't new. Now, the four-out with a three-point line is new, but the four-out is not.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        All you can see with this data is that there is either a trend or not a trend which is really misleading IMO especially if you don't simplify the groups ie stretch forwards vs traditional power forwards. I am not saying that trends are useless but it doesn't make anyone's point actually valid or not.
        How can data be misleading? If it is correctly measured and accurately labeled, how can it be misleading? Data are just a more disciplined and rigorous way of observing.

        Up to the point when I posted the scatterplots, this thread was going along on anecdotes: "There's this kind of player and there's that kind of player." Definite truths about the NBA were being asserted based on observations of one or two players and the replies based their disagreement on observations of one or two other players. A specific trade-off was asserted between taking 3-pt attempts and getting fouled.

        I posted a couple of scatterplots which, I thought, showed that the NBA actually contains a lot of disparity. Instead of the simply dichotomy posited between high-FTA, low-3PA power forwards and low-FTA, high 3PA stretch forwards, there are actually all kinds of forwards, including some who get a pretty good number of both and some who get few of either.

        The argument based on player anecdotes can go on if people wish, but the scatterplots show that descriptions of a few individual players can not be generalized to the whole league.

        Originally posted by gamble1
        IMO the stats are not falling short but its whether they are scientifically significant to validate anyone's point. A simple plot like this with out running a significance test is just the wrong way to go about it IMO.
        Do you really think so? The scatterplots are easy to view and interpret: The dots are all over the place and not arranged in a tight pattern. The pattern is confused, and that is the message. Anybody can tell there's no corrolation in the one scatterplot, and not much in the other one. How would t scores or r-squared values help?


        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        Yep... watching the game is more important than figuring out how to manage the stats to tell whatever story you want to tell.
        That's for sure. The person who "wants to tell a story" can use any anecdotes he pleases. He can even make stuff up. It is the person who wants to know what's true in general who needs to look at the data.

        My motivation here, as usual, is not to assert a point, but to dispute one that isn't supported by a broader look.




        .
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          How can data be misleading? If it is correctly measured and accurately labeled, how can it be misleading? Data are just a more disciplined and rigorous way of observing.
          The data points are not misleading, the INTERPRETATION ("either a trend or not a trend") can very well be.

          The biggest fallacy of statistical interpretation is that somehow correlation implies causation...
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

            Originally posted by BillS
            The data points are not misleading, the INTERPRETATION ("either a trend or not a trend") can very well be.
            Yes!






            .
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              How can data be misleading? If it is correctly measured and accurately labeled, how can it be misleading? Data are just a more disciplined and rigorous way of observing.
              .
              Well I didn't say "the data is misleading" I said that "what" you have ploted and the assumptions that are being made off of it is misleading. Trends IMO only imply they do not prove which is a very big difference. If you want to prove or disprove a commonly held assumption (hypothesis) then you need to do a test. This is the reason why p-values are so important to guys like me. They either prove a assumption or disprove based on the evidence (data) collected.

              If you do plots like this then you should limit what you include. To say a guys is above a line tells us almost nothing about troy murphy when you include small forward in there. In addition impling that KG is somehow below average at offensive rebounds when he is a grandpa is misleading IMO. From what I can tell this data is just last season which doesn't give a accurate observation in the cases of KG.

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Do you really think so? The scatterplots are easy to view and interpret: The dots are all over the place and not arranged in a tight pattern. The pattern is confused, and that is the message. Anybody can tell there's no corrolation in the one scatterplot, and not much in the other one..
              Again there is little correlation because your criteria is not defined enough. You don't exclude obvious errors. The question was if a pf is consistently 15 ft away from the basket that he doesn't get as many fouls called. IMO you shouldn't include all forwards but compare traditional pf's to stretch pf's. This addresses BluenGolds hypothesis. You very well might be right but data anaylsis is much much more complicated than what is being made out here.

              ITs about what the question is, how you go about answering it (3pta/fta)and what is the accurate conclusion of the analysis.

              Maybe compare the top 15 traditional pf vs the top 15 stretch pf's and see if that plot reveals a correlation. IF you want to go even further do that list with the players on teams not making the playoffs.

              Don't get me wrong. I am not against doing data anaylsis but in sports it's really haphazardly done and leads a ton of people just confused on what the data is really telling us.

              Comment


              • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                I have nothing against statistics. The final score is a stat.

                However since the advent of fantasy basketball, stats. have become such an overused tool that some people (not all and certainly not you Putnam) believe that the only things that matter is the numbers.

                In fact there is no point in even talking with some of them because to them statistics is their religion.

                It is why someone like Rick Kamala can never watch Troy Murphy play a game of basketball but declare over the open airwaves that he is a beast all due to the fact that stat wise the guy is a fantasy basketball player dream.

                Would even fans of Troy Murphy declare that he is a beast?

                The only real negative stat that Troy brings to the team is a poor (+/-) but everyone concedes that number is to easy to manipulate to be of true value.

                Like I said, I'm not biased against the numbers because they are what they are.

                Numbers don't lie, however they don't always tell the truth either.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                  Well it depends on if the stat is the tool or a tool, that determines the relavance.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                    The question was if a pf is consistently 15 ft away from the basket that he doesn't get as many fouls called. IMO you shouldn't include all forwards but compare traditional pf's to stretch pf's. This addresses BluenGolds hypothesis. You very well might be right but data anaylsis is much much more complicated than what is being made out here.
                    Yes, it is a very complex topic that cannot be proven.

                    My point was simply that I think traditional PF's are usually the better answer than a stretch PF...for several reasons which I attempted to explain.

                    While I used examples, the statements I made were meant to be general...which is precisely what a slope on a graph represents. That's why I contend that the two graphs backup some of my assertions even if they don't prove I'm correct. As for the Garnett outlier, it's hardly a surprise. He is always shooting from 18 feet away.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      is the tool or a tool
                      I'll go with the latter. I don't think he's the worst coach in the league.
                      Last edited by McKeyFan; 07-27-2010, 10:47 PM.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                        Gamble, I have thought about what you've said. I don't understand why you want to impose on me a standard of proof that neither you nor anyone else in this forum holds to. I'm talking about this:

                        Originally posted by gamble1
                        If you want to prove or disprove a commonly held assumption (hypothesis) then you need to do a test. This is the reason why p-values are so important to guys like me. They either prove a assumption or disprove based on the evidence (data) collected.
                        You don't perform significance tests on your own opinions before you express them here. Neither do any of the other posters, among whom are quite a few statistically astute people. If you want to prove me wrong by using statistics, I welcome it. If you want to suggest a better measure (as Seth did a few posts up) then great. If you want to do the correlation yourself, then that is even better. But I think you are out of line in suggesting, as you do, that statistical rigor is required for other but not yourself.

                        You seem to contend that I crossed some sort of line by posting the scatterplot. I don't understand that. The scatterplot is not a statistic at all, but an illustration. I don't see how you can say I have abused statistics when I haven't used any statistics.

                        And as you know, the purpose of test of significance statistics is mainly to avoid Type 1 errors -- accepting as true an idea that isn't true. The purpose of my two posts in the scatterplots was to argue against the unsubstantiated conclusions of others. If there were Type 1 errors being made, it wasn't me making them. And a goodness of fit test isn't apt either. I was using the entire population (not a sample) of forwards. there's no sense in measuring the goodness of fit when you're using the whole population.


                        Finally, this part of your post puzzles me most:

                        Originally posted by gamble1
                        IMO you shouldn't include all forwards but compare traditional pf's to stretch pf's.
                        You know as well as I do that there is, officially, no such thing as a "traditional power forward" and no such thing as a "stretch forward." Neither term exists in any of the official rosters of the NBA. They are found only in the media.

                        The only way to identify a player as fitting either of those definitions is to look at his performances (either watching film or looking at data) and cherrypick only players that support your notion. You could get a high r-squared value doing that. But that is the worst kind of science of all.
                        Last edited by Putnam; 07-28-2010, 11:52 AM.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          You seem to contend that I crossed some sort of line by posting the scatterplot. I don't understand that. The scatterplot is not a statistic at all, but an illustration. I don't see how you can say I have abused statistics when I haven't used any statistics.



                          Finally, this part of your post puzzles me most:

                          You know as well as I do that there is, officially, no such thing as a "traditional power forward" and no such thing as a "stretch forward." Neither term exists in any of the official rosters of the NBA. They are found only in the media.

                          The only way to identify a player as fitting either of those definitions is to look at his performances (either watching film or looking at data) and cherrypick only players that support your notion. You could get a high r-squared value doing that. But that is the worst kind of science of all.
                          I don't think you crossed any line and I apoligize if it came across that way.

                          This goes back to what I perceived the question being and how I go about answering it. When I look at the question at least to me it was very specific so I would go about answering it the best possible way. Scatter plots to me don't answer the question is all I am saying. You may persceive it as cherry picking but I have been in science for 10 + years and have been trained by a lab that produces Science, Cell, Nature publications the highest standard in the community.

                          Hey if I had the time to do all the graphs I would do it. I appreciate the discussion though.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            If shooting more 3's hasn't caused less drawn fouls, then what other possessions were sacrificed to attack more? The mid-range jumper? Is the real trend that to make up for shooting more 3's by teams wanting to still get a lot of FTAs, they decided to abandon the mid-range jumper?
                            Yeah, I think so (that's a question data analysis can answer quickly and accurately).

                            It doesn't reach this level:



                            Cumulative shot-chart of the Euroleague F4 semi-finals, ballineurope.com

                            ...but it's been trending that way, I suspect.

                            Anyway, last season the 3PTA% declined (very, very little, from 0.224 to 0.222) and the 3PT% was the smaller in years - maybe an equilibrium point has been reached, a plateau (at least when it comes to the 3pt shooting - not sure what happened to the midrange game vs. close shots).

                            Here's an interesting article on why the mid-range game has been losing importance:

                            http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/0...hould-be-lost/
                            In the National Basketball Association this season, three-point shots were dropping 37% of the time, just slightly worse than 40% for mid-range jump shots, according to Roland Beech of NBA stats site 82games.com.

                            Keep in mind that these stats may be uncharitable to the three-pointer, because they include desperation heaves at the end of a period. Remove NBA shots taken with fewer than two seconds left in a quarter, and the percentage on mid-range jumpers is unchanged, but three-pointers inch up to 38%, according to Beech.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                              Good discussion all around, and special praise for Putnam and count55 for the delicious eye candy.

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              Danny Granger is the gold dot. Murphy is the red one, and there are 70 NBA forward who get to the line less often than he does (on a per 36 minutes basis) despite his camping out at the line.
                              First of all, big kudos for this great graphic, and for the second one with offensive rebounding. Big contribution, fascinating image, and you get the extra mention for highlighting Murphy, Granger, Garnett, and Kapono.

                              The only complaint I have is that it should show 4’s and 5’s, not 3’s and 4’s. The debate is about whether big men ought to step out and shoot threes; most people wouldn’t restrict small forwards from doing that; and on the other side, Boston, Utah, and Phoenix gave big minutes last year to centers shooting threes.

                              Having said that, the Pacers have often in the last couple of years run a small lineup with Danny Granger as the stretch 4, so including him actually does contribute something pertinent to the discussion.

                              More fundamentally, what this graph looks at is the FTAs of the guys who actually shoot the threes; but the point of the strategy (“stretch”) is to open driving lanes for guys who can create shots off the dribble or in a pick and roll or pick and fade.

                              So the crucial information you really want is: how many FTA’s does the whole team get when the stretch big is on the floor, compared to when he’s not? Even more fundamental, how many FT MAKES are there, since you don’t just want a possession wasted by a guy who can’t make the foul shots. This is the excellent point made by Ozwalt72:

                              Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                              Well, that's the team but I understand. Those teams have other players that compensate by drawing fouls. And honestly, it's probably better to have those slashers and such that draw a high amount of fouls than it is big guys. They tend to shoot at a higher percentage of free throws and they often get the same guys into foul trouble.
                              someone was talking about Dale Davis, for example, who was a terrible FT shooter.

                              Lance Stephenson, anyone?

                              Originally posted by flox View Post
                              The slope is a difference of 1 FTA per game from players of whoever you want to Murphy. One FTA per game. that equals to 82 less FTA a season.
                              This is interesting; that is a pretty small number - I would have guessed larger, in fact. Now it’s true that a single point can be the difference in a game, though that slope is probably flatter still because Murphy is an A-minus free throw shooter.

                              But again the crucial question is not how many FT’s the stretch big takes, but how many the team takes when he’s on the floor.

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              The purple dot nearest the origin, signifying the lunk who stays near the paint but still doesn't get many offensive rebounds? Fella name of "Garnett."
                              In his presentation to the season-ticket holders in 2004, Ainge said that his goal was an offense like Sacramento or Minnesota. It was a strange pair because Sac played a very quick tempo and Minny a very slow one; what they had in common was a 4 you could run a lot of offense through (Sac also had a 5, point taken). No one in that audience could have guessed that Danny Legend would achieve his goal by simply going out and GETTING the guy. Wa La.

                              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                              "... given the number of 3-pointers they attempt."

                              I'm curious: Does this change the emotional response of many readers? (Methinks so!)
                              Good catch, but since they both make their attempts at an excellent rate and both have offensive rebounding numbers above the trend line, my emotional response is on the whole positive.

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              07-08 Celts won without a stretch PF, at least a 3pt stretch type.
                              What they did frequently that year, most memorably in that amazing comeback in game 4 of the Finals, was use James Posey as a stretch 4 in a small lineup with Garnett as the center. It was not their starting lineup or their most used, but it was a key component of their strategy, and without it they wouldn’t have won the title.

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              IF we want to clean up the chart to make a accurate observation then we should look at all starting pf's and compare that.
                              I go along with you a quarter of the way. Yes, we should take out the small forwards; but we should put in the stretch fives also; beyond that, it’s obvious that stretch bigs are being used off the bench as well as in starter roles, by almost all the top teams - AND getting starters’ minutes (or in the case of Boston, sixth man minutes). Lakers, Mavs, Cavs, Magic, Jazz, Suns, Thunder - all won 50 games or more, and all had a stretch big playing starter’s minutes. Now Denver has acquired Al Harrington, so only the Hawks in that group do not use a big to spread the floor.

                              Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                              Makes me wonder what quality of player Murphy would be offensively if he were to try to imitate Dirk offensively. He has shown some midrange game and has finished well when driving...
                              True, Troy has an excellent midrange game, mostly in the flow of the offense, between 15 and the arc, and from all angles (84/179 - .479; Dirk is at .471, though he takes more and has to create a lot more of them). But imitating Dirk is neither likely nor desirable - the big difference is the post game, and it’s just not going to happen for Murphy.

                              Murphy’s conversion at the rim is an excellent .596 (Dirk’s is .545) - again, he’s a careful player who makes good decisions.

                              330/476: Murphy’s three attempts vs. two attempts (FYI, not particularly trying to make a point).

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I agree. I think he agrees to a lot less money and stays with the Pacers/JOB. OTOH now's the time to strike for him with his stats in JOB inflation mode.
                              Bird suggested the possibility of re-signing the 2011 expirings for less money in his April 2009 press conference, so you might well be right about Murphy; but he’s 30 years old and may not fit in the Pacers’ window of opportunity for contention. On the whole I think that a trade is the most likely scenario, either at the deadline or S&T at the end of the season depending on playoff hopes and how much Tyler and McRoberts are progressing.

                              “JOB inflation mode”? - he’s a hugely efficient shooter/scorer who doesn’t try to do too much and doesn’t turn it over, and the coaching staff figured out how to use him. It’s not some kind of mirage! The ball really does go in the basket when he shoots. Shooting is the most valued skill in the game, and it should be obvious from what we’ve seen in this thread that bigs that can shoot from the arc are highly valued in today’s NBA.

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                              You don't want Troy Murphy shooting less 3s and regressing to the efficiency of his GSW days for the sake of a couple more offensive rebounds per game. It'd make him a far less valuable player - 15ppg at a .500 TS% hurts more than helps. At a .580 TS% it's a valuable contribution.
                              I’ll point out a couple of things here - Troy Murphy does not change ends real quickly. If his portfolio includes crashing the boards on every play, you guarantee deficits in your transition defense.

                              One of the side benefits of him catching and shooting threes up top in the middle of the floor, apart from that defenses have the most trouble extending there, is that he doesn’t have far to run back in transition.

                              Check out the Pacers’ FG defense at the rim - seventh in the league. Part of that is physical ball, part is transition defense.

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                              Meaning it's not playing perimeter bigs that prevents one from drawing fouls. The Hornets were the 2nd worst team in drawing fouls and their big man rotation was Okafor/West/Songaila/Wright - combined for 39 3pt shots the entire season.
                              Quite right, points and wings go to the line, too. This is the broader perspective we need for this issue, or rather these issues:

                              Do the Pacers run an optimum offense for their personnel? - a question about the effectiveness of their coaching staff;

                              What’s the future of Troy Murphy with the team; and

                              3) Should Josh McRoberts be groomed as Troy’s replacement?

                              And I just learned some Latin from you, too.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              It may be true that Troy is being used properly based on his skill set. I do think that is likely, although I believe he is logging too many minutes.
                              Well, well. I agree that it is likely that Troy was used well, given his skillset. (This sounds like a vote of confidence for the coaching staff...!) Indeed, it looked as though Tyler was going to get significant minutes before he went down, despite being a rookie; and the staff was apparently interested in getting McRoberts some more burn at the end of the season.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              But beyond that, there are more factors at play than eFG%, FTA's and 3PTM.
                              I agree completely.


                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              The other point floating around here: More Threes = Fewer FTA's.

                              The pink line is Free Throw Attempts as a percentage of Field Goal Attempts. The Blue Line is Three Point Attempts as a percentage of Field Goal Attempts. Despite a huge increase in Three Pointers, the volume of FT's - in relation to total FGA's - has remained relatively stable. Other than the anomaly caused by the 22-foot line in the mid-90's, the blue Three Point trendline has climbed steadily, while the the pink FTA line has fluctuated up and down, showing no clear connection to the proliferation of the three point shot.
                              Great graphics, and the analysis is acute. The point is made very convincingly that increasing threes doesn’t decrease FTA’s, at least league-wide.

                              Should this surprise us? The whole point of “spreading the floor” is to get your star players to the front of the rim where they can get you lots of points. Surely a coaching staff here and there would be paying attention to whether or not the strategy was actually working, as opposed to getting the OPPOSITE of the intended effect?

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              There shouldn't be too high a correlation between OR and effeciency though. Since an OR is a new possession, effeciency is not going to be good. The previous possession was already "wasted" with a missed shot.

                              The old adage still works... you show me a team with a lot of ORs and I'll show you a team that has missed a lot of shots.
                              Actually a couple of good points here. But first of all, though, in the commonly accepted meaning of “possession” nowadays an offensive rebound (or jump ball) continues the same team’s possession.

                              You could put together an offense that uses both threes and offensive rebounding as the two primary weapons, maybe even sending three guys at times to the offensive boards. It’s unusual, but it’s been done. A prime example is the Sonics of 2005 (Dean Oliver was a personnel consultant for that team; now he’s with the Nuggets), which had Ray Allen (556 threes), Rashard Lewis (432), Vlad Rad (329), and Luke Ridnour (178), all of them shooting at least .376; PLUS they had Danny Fortson, Reggie Evans, and Nick Collison contesting every offensive board. They had 111 more O boards than their opponents over the season, even though they played one of the slowest paces in the league (27th - it was 87.9 possessions; in 2010, Portland was last at 90.0!). It’s a stats guru’s dream team, and no wonder - it looks like Oliver somehow talked them in to making his book real. They were second in offense (112.2 per hundred), and 27th in defense (109.6), and won 52 games. Lost to the Spurs in the second round, where they were definitely overmatched.

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              The thing that bothers me about using eFG% to defend a 3-point shooter is that it's not as if the player is literally ever hitting, say, 60% (if that happens to be the eFG%), and those additional empty trips give the opponent more opportunities to score after you have just failed to do so by missing a lower-% (just speaking literally in how often you actually make it) shot.
                              Well, the old NBA coaches’ proverb is: “a possession is a point.” That’s still true (1.05 or so, actually). Turn the argument around - if you shoot eFG% of 60, just shooting threes, your opponent has to make 1.2 points per possession to keep up.

                              You can also turn your argument on its head, with a nod to ChicagoJ’s point: if my eFG% is 60, I need four makes on ten shots to get 12 points, and there are six potential offensive rebounds; if I shoot 60% on twos, I need six makes on ten shots, and there are only four potential OR’s.

                              Danny Ainge in summer 2003 (no doubt with an image in mind of Antoine Walker on a bum knee doing a crossover dribble and shot fake at the arc, followed by a contested three with 14 seconds on the clock): “I like threes. I like a lot of threes. But I like a mixture.”

                              Obviously you can’t just stand around and shoot threes, even though some Pacers fans seem to think that that’s the plan. It’s not. The Pacers’ offense is designed above all other things to get driving lanes and one-on-one coverage for Danny Granger. I’d say that he’s done an excellent job of taking advantage of those opportunities, especially the last two seasons. But he needs help in terms of someone else who can create off the dribble. Brandon has been slow to get there, but he’s progressing.

                              Hello Lance Stephenson. Hello Paul George.

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              If shooting more 3's hasn't caused less drawn fouls, then what other possessions were sacrificed to attack more? The mid-range jumper? Is the real trend that to make up for shooting more 3's by teams wanting to still get a lot of FTAs, they decided to abandon the mid-range jumper?
                              The long midrange from 18 to 25 is the least productive shot in basketball, and there is now a widespread recognition that you don’t want those shots. But as you get closer the %s go up; and spreading the floor with good three-point shooters allows for more movement - and more open shots - in the 15-18 range, which is the staple of, say, Antonio McDyess or Kevin Garnett, whose games were mentioned earlier.

                              It seems to me that Josh McRoberts could be a high-post 4 in the Garnett mold, since he has good court sense and passing skills.

                              “...teams wanting to still get a lot of FTAs”? Are there any teams that don’t want a lot of free throws?
                              Last edited by O'Bird; 07-28-2010, 07:45 PM.
                              :

                              "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                              "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                              "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                                Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                                Actually a couple of good points here. But first of all, though, in the commonly accepted meaning of “possession” nowadays an offensive rebound (or jump ball) continues the same team’s possession.
                                Yes, that's how its talked about by analysts, commentators, and coaches.

                                But statistically, to calculate an effeceincy rating the number of possessions is FGA+turnovers+jump balls+holding the ball at the end of a period. More ORs increases the number of possessions, and both teams do not have the same number of possessions per game because of this.

                                As shown in the play-by-play log, this is three possessions:

                                08:28 Granger Jump Shot: Missed
                                08:26 Hibbert Rebound (Off:1 Def:0)
                                08:26 Hibbert Tip Shot: Missed
                                08:24 Hibbert Rebound (Off:2 Def:0)
                                08:24 Hibbert Layup Shot: Missed
                                08:16 Scola Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)

                                And that's consistent with how I was taught to calculate those effeciency stats back when I did that. So even though the common vernacular considers ORs to be "extending the possession" the stats are different. And even if the possessions are calculated differently now, you'd have comparability issues with the old effeciency data -- especially if the old play-by-play logs are lost.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X