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

A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

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

  • A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

    Using 82games I wanted to post just a few statistics of the Pacers season just for fun and also to hopefully destroy a few common myths on this board.

    According to 82games, George Hill was the best defender on the team.

    His opponent PER was 12.2 on the season.

    Of course to completely understand statistics we have to at least try to understand why the numbers show what they show. I think a big reason Hill had the best defensive numbers is not only is he a good defender of course, but the majority of the season he was playing with the second unit and had to defend lesser talent. I think that has a lot to do with it. It is worth noting though, that he does play good defense. I think he got a lot of criticism because he happend to have trouble with Jameer in the playoffs because it wasn't the best matchup for Hill, but he played well all season.

    Who came in second? Danny Granger. Danny's opponent PER was 12.4 on the season.

    Danny opponent PER was slightly higher (not as good) than Luol Deng's Opponent PER. I'm noting Deng because a lot of people love to rave about his defense, which is not entirely misplaced, but it can give us perspective. Danny Granger is a good defender folks. He had the best defense out of all the starters this past season. And yes that includes Paul George. One more comparison is Kobe Bryant who gave up an opponent PER of 12.4 as well this season.

    I think we all know that Paul George will be a great defender. He is not one now however. He can't go through screens* and has given up some huge points to guys like JJ Reddick this season. That is not a mark of a great defender. We like to rave about Paul's defense because he can play excellent on the ball defense but he lacks two important ingredients that make a great defender: strength and the ability to get through screens.



    The rest of the starters' opponent PER during the season:

    Hibbert: 15.0
    West: 15.2
    George: 14.2

    According to simple rating (via 82games) in descending order the best players on the Pacers were as follows:

    Danny Granger: 7.5
    Roy Hibbert: 5.1
    Paul George 4.3
    David West 3.9
    George Hill 2.3

    Here is 82 games explanation of simple rating:

    The main components of the 'Simple Ratings' are a production measure (a variant of John Hollinger's PER rating) for a player's own stats versus the counterpart player on the other team while he is on the court, as well as a simple on court/off court plus minus.
    Simple rating cannot be used as a concrete rating system but I think it does give us a pretty good idea on who was the most effective during the season. I think this gives us a pretty good idea on who was the best player on the Pacers and where the rest of the starters fall in line. Though this shouldn't be a surprise, I must emphasize that despite what some on this board say, Danny Granger is the best player on this team. He is the best scorer and defender among the starters.

    For fun, here is a random list of players that had a lower simple rating than Danny Granger this season:

    Paul Pierce
    M. Gasol
    Josh Smith
    Harden
    Aldridge
    Westbrook
    'Melo


    * Paul is NOT having trouble getting through screens because he's playing the two. Guess who sets screens for teams? Big men. Doesn't matter if he's defending the two or three, the same guy is setting a screen! Paul is having trouble getting through screens because he sucks at getting through screens not because he's defending OJ Mayo instead of Rudy Gay!

    I'm going to add more stats to this and complete this post tomorrow but halfway through I remembered I haven't slept in a long time and I'm about to pass out. I can't hardly function. I'm certain there are many spelling and grammatical errors. I'll fix them. Just let me allow my brain to recuperate.
    Last edited by mattie; 08-05-2012, 04:44 AM.

  • #2
    Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

    Very interesting.

    This adds some more credence to my own observations. Danny, although some seem unwilling to believe it, is a pretty good defender. He may not portray effort all the time, but it's definitely there, if that makes sense. And now that DC is gone, I'm sure Danny and the rest will not have to help on defense so much.

    Also, about PG, he definitely needs to figure out how to get through screens better. It's the only explanation how he looks amazing on guys like Kobe but gets destroyed by off-ball guys like Reddick.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

      Cool post, enjoy ones like this.

      One could argue that Danny's defense numbers were better the PG's because PG took on the better offensive player.
      PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

      RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

        I enjoy threads like this very much.
        Go Pacers!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

          Danny can't shut down Lebron so he's a terrible defender and I'm going to have to assume that 82games is a site full of hacks and number-distorters.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

            If you look at Hill's stats on mysynergysports.com, his offensive stats are pretty great. 53rd in points per possession, 11th in PPP as the pick & roll ball handler, and 66th in PPP in transition.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

              Granger is an above average defender, when he's willing to defend. And he was pretty willing last season. He had to, he lost his offensive touch.

              I would not look into that simple rating too much. Ryan Anderson has like +10, which puts him at the top 10 list in the league.

              The really interesting stat is actually from the 'clutch' department, where Granger was ranked 6th in the league last season during ''4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points''.

              http://www.82games.com/1112/CSORT11.HTM
              Originally posted by Piston Prince
              Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
              "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                I've always argued that Danny is a good defender, he just lacks focus off the ball from time to time. On the ball however, he rarely gets blown by, and he picks up a decent amount of blocks for a SF that isn't particularly ├╝ber athletic. Of course others will debate it, but DG can play good D as long as he remains focused.

                Good post here, some interesting numbers for sure

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                  I am waiting for vnzla81 and olblu to get on here and tell us how dumb these numbers are and how anyone who likes Granger is overrating him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    I am waiting for vnzla81 and olblu to get on here and tell us how dumb these numbers are and how anyone who likes Granger is overrating him.
                    I have olblu on my ignore list so I don't think he can see this thread.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                      I don't think there was ever really any serious doubt that Granger is the best player on the team, from anyone who is rational. I believe the debate is about who is more important to the team between Granger and Hibbert.

                      I was looking through the stats back near the end of the season, and there are a lot of stats there that fly in the face of common perception on this board.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                        Originally posted by mattie View Post
                        I have olblu on my ignore list so I don't think he can see this thread.
                        IIRC, the ignore button only keeps you from seeing him. not the other way around.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                          Nice work MAttie, but simple rating seems like a terrible way to judge a player. Hollinger's PER is bad enough as it rewards inefficient chuckers like Danny while hardly taking into account a players defense, evident by Hollinger ranking Rajon Rondo 21st among PGs right behind great players like Jerryd Bayless, Sessions, Jarret Jack, Dragic and one spot ahead of Jordan Farmar . Add that to on/off court, which is one of the most useless stats in the game IMO, (there's sooo many holes in that stat if you're using it to rank players) and you get an interesting yet nearly worthless statistic called simple rating.

                          I do like the clutch stat Yoadknux brought up, though. Now that's impressive.

                          edit: also, Danny is not our best defender. No advanced stat you can dig up can make me believe he's better than Paul. People that matter (coaches) obviously agree or they wouldn't have voted for Paul to be on the all defensive team over Danny. Our very own coach claims Paul's one of the top 5 most versatile defenders in the league, yet mattie wants us to believe Danny's our best defender? I don't think so
                          Last edited by CJ Jones; 08-05-2012, 06:06 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                            Nice work MAttie, but simple rating seems like a terrible way to judge a player. Hollinger's PER is bad enough as it rewards inefficient chuckers like Danny while hardly taking into account a players defense, evident by Hollinger ranking Rajon Rondo 21st among PGs right behind great players like Jerryd Bayless, Sessions, Jarret Jack, Dragic and one spot ahead of Jordan Farmar . Add that to on/off court, which is one of the most useless stats in the game IMO, (there's sooo many holes in that stat if you're using it to rank players) and you get an interesting yet nearly worthless statistic called simple rating.

                            I do like the clutch stat Yoadknux brought up, though. Now that's impressive.

                            edit: also, Danny is not our best defender. No advanced stat you can dig up can make me believe he's better than Paul. People that matter (coaches) obviously agree or they wouldn't have voted for Paul to be on the all defensive team over Danny. Our very own coach claims Paul's one of the top 5 most versatile defenders in the league, yet mattie wants us to believe Danny's our best defender? I don't think so
                            Paul may be versatile, but in no way is he our best defender. The guy gets lost all the time, gives up wide open shots, leaves his feet, and cannot get through screens.

                            I attribute that to inexperience. However, anyone who watched the Orlando series saw how much Paul regressed. Really struggled.

                            Please don't take this as me trying to blindly bash PG, I love the guy/think he's going to do great things. I just think his defensive abilities are overstated due to his length/quickness giving him the ability to get some great steals. I expect him to have a huge year defensively in 12-13.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A look statistically at the Pacers 2011-12 season

                              Originally posted by Derek2k3 View Post
                              Paul may be versatile, but in no way is he our best defender The guy gets lost all the time, gives up wide open shots, leaves his feet, and cannot get through screens.

                              I attribute that to inexperience. However, anyone who watched the Orlando series saw how much Paul regressed. Really struggled.

                              Please don't take this as me trying to blindly bash PG, I love the guy/think he's going to do great things. I just think his defensive abilities are overstated due to his length/quickness giving him the ability to get some great steals. I expect him to have a huge year defensively in 12-13.
                              I'm sorry... I just can't figure how this is even debateable? If Danny's better, can you explain to me why 2 opposing coaches voted Paul George for the all defensive team while none voted for Danny? I think their votes have more clout than Hollinger's defensive PER or any poster's opinion here on PD.

                              Danny's really good, but he's not better nor did he have a better season last year than Paul did defensively. I'd put Danny 3rd or 4th on my list.

                              Roy's still probably the most important player on the defense. Hopefully he continues to improve... he's already pretty damn good.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X