PDA

View Full Version : Our Problem is Tinsley



McKeyFan
05-18-2005, 09:40 PM
Let me start this post by saying that I am still hoping for a successful series and even a possible championship. In order to do so, we would have to play beyond our ability and shoot really well. But this team has a track record of doing so, and there is a destiny thing with Reggie. So, I'm a fan and an optimist in that sense.

Secondly, let me make the point that Jamaal Tinsley is an extraordinary basketball player. He's the only player I can think of who creates moves that I couldn't even have imagined--didn't even know they were a possibility until he executes them. The really great players seem to be able to make the move and find the open space that all of us from our armchairs can see from an elevated camera view. But Tinsley--he can execute moves that don't seem to exist, even from an elevated view. He's fantastic in that sense.

But, yes. I think he is the flaw in our team. His inconsistency was with us last playoffs against Detroit. And he is with us this year as well.

My problem with Tinsley is simple: he can't hit a damn outside shot--or a free throw--with consistency. He certainly can penetrate and make great moves and score. He also can make great passes, which is somewhat of a redeeming quality amidst his liabilities.

I think the Pacers missing piece is a good point guard who can shoot well. We currently have a great point guard who shoots not so well. AJ is an okay point guard, not a good one, but he shoots well.

We don't need a great point guard. We need a good one. A good one that can shoot.

We don't need a great point guard to win a championship. We need a good point guard who can shoot well. Billups is not a great point guard. He is good (and a great defender) and he shoots very well. He brought a champtionship to Detroit.

The same can be said for Tony Parker, Avery Johnson, Paxson and the other guy for Chicago, Dennis Johnson with the Celtics and several other teams.

We don't have an offense. We have the Jamaal Tinsley show. It's quite a show. He can be very great at times. But you must play team offense to win a championship. Since he can't stretch the offense and create more opportunities for the other players, he is forced to control the ball most of the 24 seconds, make an offensive move or dump it off last minute to another player. It becomes a one-man, often an two-man, sometimes a three man offense. Not good enough.

One of two things must happen. Tinsley must become consistent. Hard to see that happening at this stage in life. Usually, by this time, you're either a consistent outside threat or you aren't. Or . . . we must trade Tinsley in the offseason--while his value is very high--for a GOOD point guard who can also shoot. Those of you who will berate me regarding how fantastically great Tinsley is at penetrating and creating need to please understand my point that a GOOD point guard that we got in exchange for Tins could also do that.

Could we make a straight trade--Tinsley for Bibby? Do you think Bibby, a good point guard and good shooter, would take the Pacers to the next level? I think he would.

Some will say Rick is to blame that we don't have a four or five man offense. But if Tins can't stretch the defense, then you can also argue that Rick is forced to play Tinsley-type ball. Or . . . he can go with AJ, which he seems to do a lot more than expected for a backup. Or . . . he can beg the front office to trade for point guard who does what AJ does (shoot) and what Tinsley does (penetrate and dish) but just not quite so extremely well.

I think I've made my point. We live and die with Jamaal Tinsley. We shouldn't have to. The problem needs to be solved next year either by Tinsley or by Larry Bird.

Until then, we hope these guys will continue to play beyond their ability and that the inconsistent, streaky Tinsley hits a bunch of threes down the stretch.

Jermaniac
05-18-2005, 09:49 PM
He was starting to be very consitent before he got hurt, right now for a guy who has missed what 2 months, he is playing good.

PacerSteelerChick
05-18-2005, 09:49 PM
Let me start this post by saying that I am still hoping for a successful series and even a possible championship. In order to do so, we would have to play beyond our ability and shoot really well. But this team has a track record of doing so, and there is a destiny thing with Reggie. So, I'm a fan and an optimist in that sense.

Secondly, let me make the point that Jamaal Tinsley is an extraordinary basketball player. He's the only player I can think of who creates moves that I couldn't even have imagined--didn't even know they were a possibility until he executes them. The really great players seem to be able to make the move and find the open space that all of us from our armchairs can see from an elevated camera view. But Tinsley--he can execute moves that don't seem to exist, even from an elevated view. He's fantastic in that sense.

But, yes. I think he is the flaw in our team. His inconsistency was with us last playoffs against Detroit. And he is with us this year as well.

My problem with Tinsley is simple: he can't hit a damn outside shot--or a free throw--with consistency. He certainly can penetrate and make great moves and score. He also can make great passes, which is somewhat of a redeeming quality amidst his liabilities.

I think the Pacers missing piece is a good point guard who can shoot well. We currently have a great point guard who shoots not so well. AJ is an okay point guard, not a good one, but he shoots well.

We don't need a great point guard. We need a good one. A good one that can shoot.

We don't need a great point guard to win a championship. We need a good point guard who can shoot well. Billups is not a great point guard. He is good (and a great defender) and he shoots very well. He brought a champtionship to Detroit.

The same can be said for Tony Parker, Avery Johnson, Paxson and the other guy for Chicago, Dennis Johnson with the Celtics and several other teams.

We don't have an offense. We have the Jamaal Tinsley show. It's quite a show. He can be very great at times. But you must play team offense to win a championship. Since he can't stretch the offense and create more opportunities for the other players, he is forced to control the ball most of the 24 seconds, make an offensive move or dump it off last minute to another player. It becomes a one-man, often an two-man, sometimes a three man offense. Not good enough.

One of two things must happen. Tinsley must become consistent. Hard to see that happening at this stage in life. Usually, by this time, you're either a consistent outside threat or you aren't. Or . . . we must trade Tinsley in the offseason--while his value is very high--for a GOOD point guard who can also shoot. Those of you who will berate me regarding how fantastically great Tinsley is at penetrating and creating need to please understand my point that a GOOD point guard that we got in exchange for Tins could also do that.

Could we make a straight trade--Tinsley for Bibby? Do you think Bibby, a good point guard and good shooter, would take the Pacers to the next level? I think he would.

Some will say Rick is to blame that we don't have a four or five man offense. But if Tins can't stretch the defense, then you can also argue that Rick is forced to play Tinsley-type ball. Or . . . he can go with AJ, which he seems to do a lot more than expected for a backup. Or . . . he can beg the front office to trade for point guard who does what AJ does (shoot) and what Tinsley does (penetrate and dish) but just not quite so extremely well.

I think I've made my point. We live and die with Jamaal Tinsley. We shouldn't have to. The problem needs to be solved next year either by Tinsley or by Larry Bird.

Until then, we hope these guys will continue to play beyond their ability and that the inconsistent, streaky Tinsley hits a bunch of threes down the stretch. Ahh yes! Finally someone with the same opinion as me! I totally agree with you!

ImCrazyB
05-18-2005, 09:52 PM
Are you kidding me? The contacts don't match..We would never get Bibby for Tinsley.

Don't blame Tinsley for Indianas horrible offense..Nobody can move with the ball except for him. SJax has horrible handles and Reggie is afraid to dribble through his legs..Jermaine ONeal posts and can create his own shot..But he isn't quick and he doesn't pass effectively out of Double teams due to his hindered court vision. Our Centers are rebounders and garbage men. They put back offensive rebounds and tip ins and occassionally step back for a 12-15 footer.

Don't blame this teams bad play on Tinsley..He's the only thing keeping us from scoring above 60..He has to be the Jamaal Tinsley show..Because they clog his passing lanes. I'd much rather have Tinsley then AJ on the court. Tinsley has much better ball control and can get our teams offensive sets run with 18 seconds still on the shot clock opposed to AJ's 8.

It's not Tinsleys fault..Detroits defense is fantastic and we just plain suck *** at shooting.

indytoad
05-18-2005, 10:06 PM
As far as flawed players and their detrimental effect on this team go, Tinsley is pretty far down the list. He's not perfect by any means, but he's causing less problems than a number of other stars on this team.

IndyToad
*makes lightsaber noises*

BustedPants
05-18-2005, 10:10 PM
I have always been someone who preferred consistency over variance. By variance, I mean a guy like AJ Moye when he was with IU or Austin Croshere. At times, these guys come into the game, make some big plays, and really turn things around. At other times, these same players turn the ball over, miss shot after shot, and ruin any chance of winning.

Tinsley is typically one of these "variance" type guys. However, I just do not think that we would have won with Anthony Johnson. His defense is average, he always picks up his dribble, and he rarely makes a crisp pass. So in this case, if my options are either Tinsley or Johnson obtaining the majority of the point guard minutes, I am definitely going to give it to Tinsley. He does make mistakes, and he is a horrible shooter. He has gotten better, but I think he has reached his peak--- I hypothesize that his shooting ability has only gotten better because he didn't play organized basketball until he was in his last teens.

I am shocked though that you thought the Kings would trade Bibby for a guy like Tinsley. It may be argued that Tinsley could improve to a comparable level to Bibby, but why would anyone take that chance, even if the contracts matched up? Tinsley's upside is no greater than Bibby's upside, nor does he have one attribute that is greater than Bibby's.

I also disagree with mentioning Tony Parker and John Paxson as if Parker is similar to Paxson. I don't have a great knowledge of Paxson, but I do know that doesn't match up to Parker. I don't believe a stat or other justification is needed. I just think you may have been searching for a not-so-distant historical example and grabbed the wrong guy.

On a final note, no one in particular is to blame. Not Reggie, Jermaine, Jackson, Tinsley, or any other Pacer, including Carlisle, Bird, and Donnie Walsh. They are all to blame. No one has consistently played great, and all of them have put in a handful of bad games. As Reggie likes to say, we have a "puncher's chance" to win Game 6... and I believe that.

Go Pacers. Win Game 6.

ABADays
05-18-2005, 10:14 PM
I have never thought Tinsley takes enough time on his free throws.

indytoad
05-18-2005, 10:15 PM
:o:o
Wait, did I just agree with something Indytoad said.

You're making lightsaber noises too?

IndyToad
Hasn't been in any recent episodes

McKeyFan
05-18-2005, 10:15 PM
Are you kidding me? The contacts don't match..We would never get Bibby for Tinsley.

I actually just asked the question. I'm not a RealGM type, so that's good to know. But do you think its just about contracts or is Bibby better?


Don't blame Tinsley for Indianas horrible offense..Nobody can move with the ball except for him...Jermaine ONeal posts and can create his own shot..But he isn't quick and he doesn't pass effectively out of Double teams due to his hindered court vision.

Agreed. He moves well with the ball. But, remember, we're not comparing him to AJ in this post, we're comparing him to a PG we could trade for who could also move the ball well for us --AND shoot.

And, I wonder if JO would pass out of double teams better if one of his regular options was a point guard at the top of the key. :)


It's not Tinsleys fault..Detroits defense is fantastic and we just plain suck *** at shooting.

In part, because our point guard can't shoot.

3ptmiller
05-18-2005, 10:19 PM
I 100% agree, cant imagine that so many people agreed on this!

Ragnar
05-18-2005, 10:19 PM
I dont think the problem is that he cant shoot so much as that he does not want to. He has show that he can shoot. He had not been hitting and then in game three he hit a lot of shots and I think he could again but would rather get the ball to Jermaine. I would love to see Jamaal take over like he did when Jermaine and Jack were out. I hope us being against the wall makes Rick brush that offense off.

IMO the problem we are having is that we are too predictable in out offense. We need to mix it up. This was our flaw in 00 as well.

McKeyFan
05-18-2005, 10:24 PM
I also disagree with mentioning Tony Parker and John Paxson as if Parker is similar to Paxson. I don't have a great knowledge of Paxson, but I do know that doesn't match up to Parker. I don't believe a stat or other justification is needed. I just think you may have been searching for a not-so-distant historical example and grabbed the wrong guy.

I'll concede that point. But they are similar in that they both can shoot from the outside better than Tinsley. And neither of them are better at dribble penetration than Tinsley, IMO.

Remember, I'm not arguing in this post whether Tinsley is a great player or whether he should be playing in this series. I'm asking if a hypothetical point guard we could obtain in lieu of Tinsley--someone better than AJ and a better shooter than Tins--would help the Pacer team more.

McKeyFan
05-18-2005, 10:30 PM
I would love to see Jamaal take over like he did when Jermaine and Jack were out.

Here's a question--and its related to BBall's post dissing JO. Who was the point guard when we went on our big run near the end of the regular season--AJ or Tins? And was JO out the entire time? I think he was.

BBall eludes to the Detroit win with AJ at point and no JO. The theory, I guess, is that such rosters force the offense to create movement because there is no crutch--not the crutch of dumping it in to JO and not the crutch of standing around and watching the Jamaal create fantastic drives.

Anthem
05-18-2005, 10:38 PM
Yowza. I strongly disagree with the initial post.

I'm going to leave it all alone, except to say that Tinsley's become a very good shooter when he's not flat-footed. Before we run him out of town, why not see what he does when he's healthy?

Or, to take the thread to its logical conclusion, why not get rid of every good player we have so we won't take the "talent shortcut?"

Tinsley is not the problem.

Suaveness
05-18-2005, 10:40 PM
Tinsley hasn't played in ages, and hasn't had time to work on his shooting. He was shooting great in the beginning of the year, so please don't tell me he can't shoot the ball.

BustedPants
05-18-2005, 10:49 PM
I'll concede that point. But they are similar in that they both can shoot from the outside better than Tinsley. And neither of them are better at dribble penetration than Tinsley, IMO.

Remember, I'm not arguing in this post whether Tinsley is a great player or whether he should be playing in this series. I'm asking if a hypothetical point guard we could obtain in lieu of Tinsley--someone better than AJ and a better shooter than Tins--would help the Pacer team more.

I suppose if a team would trade us a guy who is better than Anthony Johnson and a better shooter than Jamaal Tinsley, then I would want him. Why wouldn't we want him?

The posed hypothetical situation needs to be a little more specific. I think you are trying to find a point guard who shoots well, controls the tempo of the game, and minimizes turnovers while possibily not having the dribble penetration of a guy like Tinsley (and has a similar contract). The problem is, a team wouldn't trade these attributes for a guy who has average attributes besides his ability to penetrate like Tinsley.

One final clarification--- you have to remember that Bibby is making over $10MM a year until the end of the 2008-2009 season. Tinsley is in a contract year.

McKeyFan
05-18-2005, 10:53 PM
Or, to take the thread to its logical conclusion, why not get rid of every good player we have so we won't take the "talent shortcut?"

I get your point. But I said in the post that due to Tins's inability to stretch the offense, it may be that Rick is forced into a penetrate and dribble routine with Tinsley which inevitably leads to usually just one or two people involved in the offense.

The games where we were forced to execute a motion offense provided some good results. They are reflective of what happens when you do that. I'm not saying get rid of the crutches. I'm saying execute a motion offense. I'm not saying get rid of JO (although I have certain sympathies for BBall's post), but I am indeed saying that trading Tinsley needs to be considered because his liabilities actually PREVENT a good motion offense. I'm not convinced JO's presence does that.

In other words, Rick can coach us past using JO as a crutch (jury still out!) but he can't coach us past using Tinsley as one.

PacerMan
05-18-2005, 10:58 PM
Tins has gone from sitting for what, two months? To playing major minutes. He's whipped. Plain and simple. Can't shoot very good when you're exhausted. Make more turnovers too. Look familiar?

anybody that thinks Tinsley is a liability needs to go watch some tapes of when Jackson and Oneal and Artest were all out. And we kept winning.
He's NOT 100%!!!!!!!! When he is, he's good to VERY good.. I NEVER thought he'd be the penetrator he's become. Get some guys moving without the ball and he'll average 12 assists one of these years.

Anthem
05-18-2005, 11:07 PM
I get your point. But I said in the post that due to Tins's inability to stretch the offense, it may be that Rick is forced into a penetrate and dribble routine with Tinsley which inevitably leads to usually just one or two people involved in the offense.

Flat out wrong. Look at round 1 game 4 for an example of "just one or two people involve in the offense." Look at game 5 (when Tins returned) for the opposite.

Tinsley's jumper was quite good before his injury. He stretched the D just fine.

We survived during that time because AJ played out of his mind. He hasn't done that before or since.

Arcadian
05-18-2005, 11:23 PM
I have thought this about a lot of the threads but I'll put it here: Our main problem is the Pistons. Right now they are just better than us.

ImCrazyB
05-18-2005, 11:33 PM
In part, because our point guard can't shoot.
You're right, Let's sign Iverson. We need our POINT guard (guy who controls offense through passing) to take more shots.


And, I wonder if JO would pass out of double teams better if one of his regular options was a point guard at the top of the key. :)

Or perhaps if Reggie could make a 3 pointer..Or maybe if Stephen Jackson would stop pump faking for 5 minutes and decide whether he's going to go baseline, shoot, or pass...Most teams in the league have a SG/Low post combo..So if anyone should be getting blamed for not helping JO on the double teams, It should be Reggie if not JO.


Agreed. He moves well with the ball. But, remember, we're not comparing him to AJ in this post, we're comparing him to a PG we could trade for who could also move the ball well for us --AND shoot.
Hey, Let's all live in magic pacer land.

Let's trade Pollard for Shaq, Reggie for TMac, Tinsley for Nash/Kidd...After all, we could trade for these guys!!



One more important thing, Tinsley would have been a top candidate for most improved player of the year if he hadn't been out due to injuries. He has made huge strides in the past 2 years in terms of becoming a better player. He's slimmed up, Shot even better, and has some pretty sick handles. I realize this excuse is probably old..But Tinsley is just now getting back into the grove of things..His 3 pointers are starting to fall and he's starting to get involved better with the team. I get the feeling you'll be eating some crow come game time tomorrow night.

Oh, and most importantly, The Pistons are playing good defense. Any PG in the league would struggle if they blocked their passing lanes constantly.

And has anyone noticed that Rasheed has just dominated Jermaine defensively? He wont even let the guy catch the ball.

brichard
05-18-2005, 11:34 PM
Tinsley is the man.

It's funny, he went from being our MVP in Boston (or God at times) to now being our biggest problem. I think Tinsley gets better every year. He does make some risky passes, but all great point guards do. I agree his offense needs to get better, but as those alluded already, he was really doing that early on in the year.

And hey, Tinsley has actually been one of the few bright spots agains Detroit. Sure, he got his shot sent back air mail a few times last game, but he has also driven with some good success against the Pistons.

I do believe his outside shot is affected by the injury. He has no lift. Tinsley shouldn't need to give us more than 10-15 pts a game, and I think he can do that. What he needs is for somebody on our team to hit an outside shot. Miller, Jackson, JJ, FJ... ANYONE!!!

We may see all 5 Pistons in the lane if we can't shoot any better than we did the last 2 games.

Tins isn't perfect, but you have to balance your payroll. I'm more concerned about his propensity to be injured than I am his basketball ability.

ChicagoJ
05-18-2005, 11:42 PM
Interesting.

I said last summer that Tinsley would become our second-most valuable player this summer.

But right now I think he's our MVP. But he's too hurt and out-of-shape to dictate the tempo and run the offense right now.

I think he's showing a lot of heart. Everyone knows this team drives me crazy, but Tinsley is way down on my list of problems, except for his inabilty to stay healthy.

:twocents:

shags
05-18-2005, 11:48 PM
Interesting.

I said last summer that Tinsley would become our second-most valuable player this summer.

But right now I think he's our MVP. But he's too hurt and out-of-shape to dictate the tempo and run the offense right now.

I think he's showing a lot of heart. Everyone knows this team drives me crazy, but Tinsley is way down on my list of problems, except for his inabilty to stay healthy.

:twocents:

Jamaal Tinsley is the key player in this series, for either team, IMO.

SoupIsGood
05-19-2005, 12:20 AM
Um, Tony Parker is a lot of things, but he isn't a better outside shooter than Tinsley...

To judge Tinsley by this series is pretty unfair in my opinion. When he is healthy, he is a very good all-around PG.