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

12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

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

  • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    So...subbing a player in who averages 3.1 boards in 19+ minutes leads to better rebounding than playing a guy who averages 6 boards in 23+ minutes?

    Considering the sample size, I think I'll take these stats instead. In fact, Posey has never averaged 6 boards in his career.

    Whatever those stats were saying, they were lying.
    I feel the same way, I been arguing the same thing for few weeks now.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      So...subbing a player in who averages 3.1 boards in 19+ minutes leads to better rebounding than playing a guy who averages 6 boards in 23+ minutes?

      Considering the sample size, I think I'll take these stats instead. In fact, Posey has never averaged 6 boards in his career.

      Whatever those stats were saying, they were lying.
      I think you are confusing two things.

      (1) The Pacers have rebounded worse with McRoberts on the floor this season. Those two units have rebounded at those percentages. Stats don't lie about that. It's purely descriptive. Like the score of a game. The Magic are beating the Clippers 61-44. It's factual. You can't say "yeah, maybe that's what stats show, but I think the real score is 67-65". So, those stats describe that the Pacers are struggling rebounding wise with their player X on the floor and rebounding well with player Y on the floor. Purely factual, as the score of a game. So, during the first, what, 21 games of the season, the Pacers rebounded at that rate with player X on the floor, at this rate with player Y on the floor, etc.

      (2) The stats don't say that player X is a better rebounder than player Y or that if player X plays less the rebounding will improve. For that type of conclusion, the size of the sample - and many other things - is relevant. Similar to Murphy last season - the Pacers as a team rebounded better when he was off the bench. Does it mean he was a net negative as a rebounder in spite of his stellar individual numbers? Of course not. Same this year with McRoberts.

      Was this clear? I'm not sure if it's a good enough explanation.
      Last edited by cordobes; 12-12-2010, 11:13 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

        Originally posted by cordobes View Post
        What theory and what stats?
        Well, lets put it this way. Someone argues that McRoberts should play more to help team rebounding. Obviously, the guy who started this whole discussion about McRoberts hasn't got the stats to back it up (nor does he try). For example, the main unit of Coll-Dun-Granger-Hibbert with McRob gets the same % of rebounds as with Posey. No proof to his idea.
        http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND12.HTM
        http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND9.HTM
        On the other hand, we are talking about a 137 and 33 minute sample sizes here. It's way too small to draw any conclusions. These stats don't prove anything in either direction. In this case, you can only watch games and form your opinion that way. If you form your opinion one way or another based on these shaky stats - the opinion is unsubstantiated.

        My point then is, why would you call the whole idea that "McRoberts should play more" nonsensical? I'd understand if you argued based on what you see in games. Instead, you argue based on stats while you agree that sample sizes are way too small.

        I feel like we are just showing off our knowledge in stats websites right now and throwing around stats that aren't really adding anything to the discussion on McRoberts.

        Comment


        • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

          Originally posted by cordobes View Post
          I think you are confusing two things.

          (1) The Pacers have rebounded worse with McRoberts on the floor this season. Those two units have rebounded at those percentages. Stats don't lie about that. It's purely descriptive. Like the score of a game. The Magic are beating the Clippers 61-44. It's factual. You can't say "yeah, maybe that's what stats show, but I think the real score is 67-65". So, those stats describe that the Pacers are struggling rebounding wise with their player X on the floor and rebounding well with player Y on the floor. Purely factual, as the score of a game. So, during the first, what, 21 games of the season, the Pacers rebounded at that rate with player X on the floor, at this rate with player Y on the floor, etc.

          (2) The stats don't say that player X is a better rebounder than player Y or that if player X plays less the rebounding will improve. For that type of conclusion, the size of the sample - and many other things - is relevant. Similar to Murphy last season - the Pacers as a team rebounded better when he was off the bench. Does it mean he was a net negative as a rebounder in spite of his stellar individual numbers? Of course not. Same this year with McRoberts.

          Was this clear? I'm not sure if it's a good enough explanation.
          It's factual-ish. Stats are stats, and the numbers are correct, but you can't draw factual conclusions from them. (You can use the stats to back up an argument, but you can't say it factually)

          You can even extend that to a final score. The Pacers beat the Lakers this season, by 2(?) points. That does not mean the Pacers are a better team than the Lakers. You can argue it, and the stastic of W/L record vs. each other support it..it doesn't make it true.

          This stat is even less convincing then game scores because the stat doesn't take into consideration what players each was playing at, nor how many minutes those particular lineups played together ect...

          Posey plays against the reserves a lot of the time, Josh plays against the starters a lot of the time. How often is the Hibbert/Posey/Granger/Dun/Collison really in the game together...or is Brandon Rush and Solo Jones typically in there with Posey? You can go on and on.

          So it's an interesting stat, a possible consideration. But it's certainly not a fact that the Pacers are a better rebounding team with Posey in than with Josh in. This stat is evidence to an opinion, just like Josh's RPG is evidence to an opinion..neither is fact.
          Last edited by Sookie; 12-12-2010, 11:51 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

            Originally posted by ballism View Post
            Well, lets put it this way. Someone argues that McRoberts should play more to help team rebounding. Obviously, the guy who started this whole discussion about McRoberts hasn't got the stats to back it up (nor does he try). For example, the main unit of Coll-Dun-Granger-Hibbert with McRob gets the same % of rebounds as with Posey. No proof to his idea.
            http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND12.HTM
            http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND9.HTM
            On the other hand, we are talking about a 137 and 33 minute sample sizes here. It's way too small to draw any conclusions. These stats don't prove anything in either direction. In this case, you can only watch games and form your opinion that way. If you form your opinion one way or another based on these shaky stats - the opinion is unsubstantiated.

            My point then is, why would you call the whole idea that "McRoberts should play more" nonsensical? I'd understand if you argued based on what you see in games. Instead, you argue based on stats while you agree that sample sizes are way too small.

            I feel like we are just showing off our knowledge in stats websites right now and throwing around stats that aren't really adding anything to the discussion on McRoberts.
            I didn't say that the idea that McRoberts should play more is nonsensical. I think the argument was that the team was being outrebounded when McRoberts was on the bench. That's not happening.

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            It's factual-ish. Stats are stats, and the numbers are correct, but you can't draw factual conclusions from them. (You can use the stats to back up an argument, but you can't say it factually)

            You can even extend that to a final score. The Pacers beat the Lakers this season, by 2(?) points. That does not mean the Pacers are a better team than the Lakers. You can argue it, and the stastic of W/L record vs. each other support it..it doesn't make it true.

            This stat is even less convincing then game scores because the stat doesn't take into consideration what players each was playing at, nor how many minutes those particular lineups played together ect...

            Posey plays against the reserves a lot of the time, Josh plays against the starters a lot of the time. How often is the Hibbert/Posey/Granger/Dun/Collison really in the game together...or is Brandon Rush and Solo Jones typically in there with Posey? You can go on and on.

            So it's an interesting stat, a possible consideration. But it's certainly not a fact that the Pacers are a better rebounding team with Posey in than with Josh in. This stat is evidence to an opinion, just like Josh's RPG is evidence to an opinion..neither is fact.

            To me, this is more like taking the
            I know all that. I think I say exactly the same thing in the post you're replying, no?

            Just to clarify for the last time:

            But it's certainly not a fact that the Pacers are a better rebounding team with Posey in than with Josh in.
            Correct.

            However, it is indeed a fact that the Pacers have rebounded better this season when McRoberts is off the floor. It's not fact-ish, whatever that may mean. It's reality.

            Why does that happen? That's another different issue. Nobody is saying it's because of McRoberts. Murphy was the best rebounder in the Pacers last season and yet they rebounded better with him off the floor too.

            Comment


            • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              It's the samples we have and the proper ones to use.

              That only proves that the rebounding woes aren't related with McRoberts spending less time on the floor. You couldn't use a larger sample even if you wanted to. I wouldn't advise anyone to use that to extract projections for the future or elaborate grand theories. It basically says "the Pacers have been struggling with rebounding when McRoberts is on the floor and doing okay when he's off the floor, so it's nonsensical to say that the problem is caused by a decrease in his minutes".

              It's well explained here:
              This is what I didn't agree with - the statement i marked in bold. You said the stats prove that sitting McRoberts down has no relation with rebounding woes. I think the sample sizes are way too small, so the stats don't really prove such a thing. I think we need more than 137 or 33 minutes to predict McRoberts' impact statistically. For all I know, maybe there were a couple lucky bounces during Posey's 33 minutes that complety changed these stats. So just looking at these stats, we can't say what happens with our rebounding woes if we play McRoberts more.


              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              I think the argument was that the team was being outrebounded when McRoberts was on the bench. That's not happening.
              But I agree with what you say now - in that small sample size, there's no clear difference. Both units have been rebounding more or less the same.

              Comment


              • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                This is what I didn't agree with - the statement i marked in bold. You said the stats prove that sitting McRoberts down has no relation with rebounding woes. I think the sample sizes are way too small, so the stats don't really prove such a thing. I think we need more than 137 or 33 minutes to predict McRoberts' impact statistically. For all I know, maybe there were a couple lucky bounces during Posey's 33 minutes that complety changed these stats. So just looking at these stats, we can't say what happens with our rebounding woes if we play McRoberts more.

                But I agree with what you say now - in that small sample size, there's no clear difference. Both units have been rebounding more or less the same.
                I think that if you read the entire paragraph - including the sentence where I explicitly caution about elaborating projections or theories - you'd verify I'm saying the exact same thing in both instances. I'm glad you were finally able to understand it, anyway, that's what matters.

                Why 133 and 37 minutes anyway? The Pacer have played 1056 minutes of basketball. You can use samples of 518 and 538 minutes in the case of McRoberts.

                Comment


                • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                  Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                  I think that if you read the entire paragraph - including the sentence where I explicitly caution about elaborating projections or theories - you'd verify I'm saying the exact same thing in both instances. I'm glad you were finally able to understand it, anyway, that's what matters.
                  Well I just wanted to keep it simple. The rest of the paragraph actually gets me even more surprised by your line of thinking. You say that the sample sizes are too small to draw conclusions - to which I completely agree. Yet then you go as far as saying that it's "nonsensical" to make an argument that contradicts those stats. The stats that you have just dismissed for being unreliable. That's broken logic.

                  Then you further explain your view by quoting someone who says "McRoberts being on the bench was being blamed on our rebound woes. Which obviously isn't the case." Again, the small sample size of stats isn't enough to prove that McRoberts being on the bench doesn't hurt our rebounding.

                  Maybe I missunderstand you. Maybe you just wanted to throw in some stats - without making any argument against the poster you argued with. And maybe you didn't mean to support the post you quoted later on. In which case, that particular post seems a bit clumsy, considering the choice of strong words and the post you quote as similar to your view. But anyway, it seems like we now agree that these particular stats are irrelevant to judge either way, they don't 'prove' anything and don't make either side nonsensical. So, there's nothing to argue about anymore.

                  Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                  Why 133 and 37 minutes anyway? The Pacer have played 1056 minutes of basketball. You can use samples of 518 and 538 minutes in the case of McRoberts.
                  Well, actually it's 768 minutes. December games aren't included (which makes using these stats to judge current rebounding woes even more suspicious).

                  Anyway, you want to compare similar lineups. Granger-Coll-Dun-Hibbert-JMcR lineup with Granger-Coll-Dun-Hibbert-Posey lineup, etc. You shouldn't stick with only this specific lineup, you need to take a look at other lineups too, but this one has the most minutes played both in JMcR case, and in Posey's. Thus it's the biggest sample size. Other lineups are even less used, so the stats from them can be even more distorted.

                  If you don't isolate lineups and just compare team numbers with McRoberts 'on the court' and 'off the court', you are missing the main thing - who McRoberts and Posey play with. Which has huge impact on player's "on/off the court" numbers.

                  For a more obvious example, take a look at Grizzlies rebound % numbers with Rudy Gay on the floor. When Rudy Gay is paired with two of Randolph, Gasol, Darrell Arthur, team rebound % is generally decent - mostly high 40s to mid 50s. But he also plays quite a bit in several lineups with Thabeet, in which case team % drops to 40%. And then Gay plays a bit at 4 with just one true big man in a lineup, in which case team % is generally in high 30s.

                  In other words, imo your 'on/off the court' rebound stats depend a lot on who you play with, and who your backup plays with. Which forces you to go deeper than 768 minutes and look at specific lineups. But once again - the sample sizes are way too small to make any definite conclusions about McRoberts impact on rebounding.
                  Last edited by ballism; 12-13-2010, 06:16 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                    I can't tell you how much I hate Josh shooting threes!
                    Actually, I'm okay with it. I don't want him to fall in love with it....but it keeps him on the floor while diversifying his offensive arsenal for the long term.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                      Problem with our rebounding is we don't have enough good rebounders period. Argument between McBob and Posey is an argument between two light rebounders/finesse PFs.

                      Tyler's probably superior to both in terms of traditional strength/boardwork. However, at least at this stage, all three are better suited to coming off the bench.

                      In other words, play any of the three in whatever minutes combo you prefer and I suspect we're still a weak rebounding team. And, IMO, we aren't significantly winning the positional battle at the 4 often either from a talent/need perspective, although we might still be developing the two younger guys.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                        A Joakim Noah, Kevin Love, or Dwight Howard would do wonders for us right now...

                        says Mr. Obvious.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                          I've seen it several times this evening where Roy is left to compete with Boozer and Noah in the paint because McBob's man does not feel the need to guard him closely.

                          I believe this issue is far worse when teams have weaker front courts, but it's even happening with the Bulls who can adequately defend Roy one-on-one.

                          Noah with another offensive board over Posey. Meanwhile, Tyler rots on the pine...

                          Comment


                          • Re: 12/11/2010 Game Thread #22: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            But anyway, it seems like we now agree that these particular stats are irrelevant to judge either way, they don't 'prove' anything and don't make either side nonsensical. So, there's nothing to argue about anymore.
                            Nah, we don't agree on that; I think we can agree to disagree.

                            Those stats are not irrelevant, they prove with 100% accuracy what was asked - if the Pacers have protected the glass better or worse with McRoberts on the floor - and the sample size is absolutely the proper one - just like saying that Tracy McGrady scored 16 points yesterday is not less accurate just because the sample size is small. You may not like the numbers, you may not like what the stat describes, but that doesn't make the stat irrelevant. So, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

                            What the stat doesn't tell is why and how that happens. Maybe it's the playing along/against starters dragging McRoberts' numbers down. The other starters except Collison all have positive on/off rebounding numbers, so maybe it's Collison. Maybe it's O'Brien's fault somehow. Maybe McRoberts is still easily pushed around by more physical bigs when facing teams that attack the offensive glass. Maybe it's just randomness. I think the reason is fairly easy to identify catching a couple of plays, but anyway, as I've stated the stat can't tell us that de per si.

                            So, we agree to disagree on one count and agree on all others. Is that okay with you?


                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I've seen it several times this evening where Roy is left to compete with Boozer and Noah in the paint because McBob's man does not feel the need to guard him closely.

                            I believe this issue is far worse when teams have weaker front courts, but it's even happening with the Bulls who can adequately defend Roy one-on-one.
                            Really? I think the Bulls doubled Hibbert a couple of times and in only a pair it was McRoberts' man the helper. In fact, I can only remember it happening once, one where Noah is fronting and Boozer steals the ball on the baseline. Let me check all the plays again.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X