PDA

View Full Version : J.O. Topic



wooolus
10-20-2006, 01:06 AM
Ok, tonight, we played without JO again, and we won... We scored well over 100 points. If you watched the game, can you tell me if the ball movement and transition offense is better? Does JO really stop this team down, because for the two games he didn't play, we scored over 100, and won both.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-20-2006, 01:07 AM
It's the PRESEASON!

wooolus
10-20-2006, 01:11 AM
It's the PRESEASON!

Does not have anything to do with Philosiphy

Leisure Suit Larry
10-20-2006, 01:23 AM
Yeah it does, even if JO was healthy he wouldn't play that much. This is the time to practice with the guys we dont know about.

Alpolloloco
10-20-2006, 04:13 AM
Ok, tonight, we played without JO again, and we won... We scored well over 100 points. If you watched the game, can you tell me if the ball movement and transition offense is better? Does JO really stop this team down, because for the two games he didn't play, we scored over 100, and won both.

You'r absolutely right, JO stops any ball movement we have. It will not change this season, so a wise decision would be to trade him (together with Jackson & Tinsley).

Bball
10-20-2006, 04:17 AM
And build around Al?

-Bball

Hicks
10-20-2006, 07:00 AM
And build around Al?

-Bball

Build around the shooting guard you get for him. Joe Johnson? :duck:

Roaming Gnome
10-20-2006, 07:08 AM
I'd like to see J.O. in more then one preseason game with this new philosophy before we start discussing trading him for a warm cup of root beer.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-20-2006, 08:10 AM
Build around the shooting guard you get for him. Joe Johnson? :duck:

Yeah Al and JJ worked out real well leading Atlanta last year. They definitely had some young talent too. More than us actually.

317Kim
10-20-2006, 10:22 AM
Could this really be because JO didn't play or just the fact that we won both games that were televised. :eyebrow:

Superstitious, huh?

ALF68
10-20-2006, 10:29 AM
If JO can stay healthy this uptempo game should benefit him not hurt him. He should look at Parish's game when the Celtics could run or play the half court style.

Harddrive7
10-20-2006, 10:47 AM
Is JO a finesse player? I mean does he like to bang or would he rather avoid contact and take a jumper? Maybe I'm asking if he's too soft?

Roy Munson
10-20-2006, 11:04 AM
As has been the case for AT LEAST the past four seasons, the Pacers have no better chance of winning with J.O. IN the lineup than they have with him OUT of the lineup. He DOES NOT make his teammates better. He DOES NOT make his team better. He never has.

Harddrive7
10-20-2006, 11:37 AM
As has been the case for AT LEAST the past four seasons, the Pacers have no better chance of winning with J.O. IN the lineup than they have with him OUT of the lineup. He DOES NOT make his teammates better. He DOES NOT make his team better. He never has.


Simply put, he's not a leader, it's just not in his blood. I think that a lot of us fell in love with the Brad/JO combo and thought that was what we were going to expect and it was even going to get better. Brad made JO better, not the other way around.

MagicRat
10-20-2006, 11:51 AM
Brad made JO better, not the other way around.

I expect Al to do the same thing.

Destined4Greatness
10-20-2006, 12:44 PM
Check the Sig

imawhat
10-20-2006, 12:50 PM
I'm a little discouraged by the JO situation in the preseason. The games have sounded bogged down when he was in there, and I'm fearing that Rick doesn't know how to stop reverting to slower play when Jermaine's in there.

Putnam
10-20-2006, 12:52 PM
I'd like to see J.O. in more then one preseason game with this new philosophy before we start discussing trading him for a warm cup of root beer.



Mmmmmm.....root beer.

Destined4Greatness
10-20-2006, 12:56 PM
The fact is though that the numbers hold true for the regular season as well. The last 2 years the team has done better without Jo than With him.

grace
10-20-2006, 01:00 PM
Preseason doesn't mean crap. If the Pacers are still losing with Jermaine after the season starts maybe I'll believe your theory but I doubt it.

Anthem
10-20-2006, 01:01 PM
Tinsley's the engine that drives the Pacers. When Tinsley's on his game and the offense bogs down with JO in it, then I'll consider what you're saying.


You'r absolutely right, JO stops any ball movement we have. It will not change this season, so a wise decision would be to trade him (together with Jackson & Tinsley).

How many games have you seen this season?

imawhat
10-20-2006, 01:02 PM
The fact is though that the numbers hold true for the regular season as well. The last 2 years the team has done better without Jo than With him.



I don't know. I think after three weeks or so last February it was obvious that we needed Jermaine's post defense. We had nobody to stop the bleeding and the high scoring eventually wore off. And that was before Jermaine returned.

Destined4Greatness
10-20-2006, 01:03 PM
Preseason doesn't mean crap. If the Pacers are still losing with Jermaine after the season starts maybe I'll believe your theory but I doubt it.

Happened the last 2 years. Got any proof to the fact that JO helps the team.

A 33-39 record with JO the last 2 years. Thats excluding games in which Artest propped him up. The Pacers on the other hand were 34-33 in games that both he and artest missed. Thats only a 7 game swing. Not like that could have determined the playoffs or not the last 2 years,....Wait.

odeez
10-20-2006, 01:10 PM
I saw and thought the same things when I watched the game last night. It does seem like we play better without him. But like others have said we should give the JO/AL thing a chance. I hope we will see it next game.

ChicagoJ
10-20-2006, 01:15 PM
Happened the last 2 years. Got any proof to the fact that JO helps the team.

A 33-39 record with JO the last 2 years. Thats excluding games in which Artest propped him up. The Pacers on the other hand were 34-33 in games that both he and artest missed. Thats only a 7 game swing. Not like that could have determined the playoffs or not the last 2 years,....Wait.

This again?

:shakehead

Destined4Greatness
10-20-2006, 01:19 PM
This again?

:shakehead


Its amazing how often the truth can pop up.

grace
10-20-2006, 01:32 PM
This again?

:shakehead

You argue with him. I'm tired and quite frankly don't give a :censored:

ChicagoJ
10-20-2006, 01:34 PM
Which fallacy would you like to explore?


*** hoc ergo propter hoc is a less specific post hoc ergo propter hoc, without time as correlation factor. It can be expressed as follows:

A occurs in correlation to B.
Therefore, A causes B.
In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports this. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least four other possibilities:

B may be the cause of A, or
some unknown third factor is actually the cause of the relationship between A and B, or
the "relationship" is so complex it can be labelled coincidental (i.e., two events occurring at the same time that have no simple relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time).
B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A is correlated with B. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically "strong".

Or...


The ecological fallacy is a widely recognised error in the interpretation of statistical data, whereby inferences about the nature of individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong. This fallacy assumes that all members of a group exhibit characteristics of the group at large.

Because you're probably going to "strike out" on either one.

ChicagoJ
10-20-2006, 01:38 PM
You argue with him. I'm tired and quite frankly don't give a :censored:

The problem isn't arguing with him. In fact, it would be useful if he'd stick around and finish a discussion.

More likely, he'll disappear for a while (again), hoping that JO gets hurt so we can start over at ground zero on this misguided argument all over again.

ALF68
10-20-2006, 01:48 PM
Is JO a finesse player? I mean does he like to bang or would he rather avoid contact and take a jumper? Maybe I'm asking if he's too soft?
I would say that he is mostly a finesse player who thinks he is a power type player. He has stated that he doesn't want to play center, so there is your answer.

Los Angeles
10-20-2006, 02:15 PM
Jay, you don't need group-based statistics to critique JO's play. While I agree that this thread has many many flawed arguments, one thing is for sure: Out of the 4 preseason games I watched so far, JO's play in the middle two was all too familiar. He went to the low/mid post. He took the ball. He kept the ball. He clanged the ball off the rim.

You are correct that the pre-season team stats have very little bearing on the conversation. I will also agree that "filtered" data from other seasons is not very helpful either.

But facts are facts: I'm seeing a new team and a new game plan and new efforts from virtually everyone except JO. He just doesn't seem to have bothered to change the way he plays at all. (I admit that there was a flash of new style from him in Game one. But that was it.)

This is from observation, not from statistics. And it is troubling.

I'm the first to tell you that he is our best player and a bona-fide star in the league. I support him and his place on our roster, but let's get real. During this preseason, he's mostly played one-on-one basketball out there, and that's not going to get it done.

ChicagoJ
10-20-2006, 02:33 PM
I've seen that. It looks to me like they're running the same old offense when JO or SJax is on the court.

Slick's been commenting on the "stand around and watch" offense of the other four players, too.

This newfangled offense, and the new-look Pacers, will take at least a full season to implement, if not longer. There are a lot of new habits to learn - if the players and coaches even have the capacity to learn new habits.

Its way, way, way, way, way too early to reach any conclusions. Yet.

In fact, it will be way, way, way too early to reach any conclusions at the All-Star Break.

This isn't a contender. On the other hand, we need to enjoy watching the slow changes, and they will take patience.

bulldog
10-20-2006, 02:41 PM
Does JO=more wins in regular season? Probably not.

But does he equal more wins in post-season, when teams don't take games off and you don't have the great equalizer of back-to-backs and other scheduling quirks? Probably.

Will he ever be the star player on a championship team? Probably not.

Does everything have to be black and white on this board? JO is good, he's just not $80 million good.

ChicagoJ
10-20-2006, 03:15 PM
Does everything have to be black and white on this board? JO is good, he's just not $80 million good.

Not during the last two, injury-plagued years.

The two years before that, a "max" contract was a bargain for JO.

I happen to think that if the injury bug is behind him, we'll see the "JO is worth the max" player again. If not, well, he gets the type of injuries (rotator cuff, knee ligaments) that come from aggressive play and just can't be prevented.

Los Angeles
10-20-2006, 03:57 PM
Jay's hit something on the head here with a single word: PATIENCE.

We're years away from returning to contender status. I agree that we need to show some patience and wait for old habits to be replaced with new habits.

This is a residual problem with Jackson's mess. In one night, he got me right back to my old itchy-trigger-finger habits. Pun intended. Over the next 6 months, I'll work on allowing things to develop slowly.

lumber man
10-20-2006, 04:49 PM
:sleep: = this thread

vapacersfan
10-20-2006, 07:41 PM
The problem isn't arguing with him. In fact, it would be useful if he'd stick around and finish a discussion.

More likely, he'll disappear for a while (again), hoping that JO gets hurt so we can start over at ground zero on this misguided argument all over again.

First of all, I have always liked JO but I do not think he is a "superstar" I think he is stuck in limbo between a great "role player" and being a "take over a game superstar". Unfortunately for us he is getting paid like the latter, and I think he has unfair expectations because of that.

I do agree with Jay, though. I almost got a kick out of coming to PD after class/work last season to see how many threads D4G had started, only to have people expose flaws in his argument and him to disappear. I even remember some members directing him in his new threads he would create weeks later to the older threads he would refuse to go back to.

J_2_Da_IzzO
10-20-2006, 08:19 PM
1. Its Preseason
2. Its Charlotte Hornets
3. Its a weakened Charlotte Hornets
4. Its a weakened Charlotte Hornets in PRESEASON
5. They havent won a single game.