PDA

View Full Version : After 5 Games: Some stats questions



Putnam
11-09-2006, 01:34 PM
Five games amounts to 1/16th of the season. Nothing is decided, but it is time to be making judgments and adjustments. I pose here three questions stimulated by the early team statistics.


1. Are the Pacers speeded up enough?

Last year, the Pacers averaged 76.5 field goal attempts. In the first five games of this season, they've averaged 83.8 FGA. The team really is moving to the rim faster. The increased field goal attempt rate is despite a higher turnover rate (18 per game this season, compared to 14.7 last year).

Is this increase from 76.5 to 83.8 enough, or do you want to see even more FGA per game? Is Sam Mitchell's stated goal of 100 FGA per game for the Raptors reasonable?


2. Are the Pacers still taking too many 3 point attempts?

Last year, the Pacers relied very heavily on the 3-pt shot, taking 18.7 attempts per game. So far this season, they are down to 12.8 attempts per game. (In last night's blowout loss, when the Pacers were frar behind and missing their main post player they took 19).

Is the 3pt shot where it needs to be, or would you want still fewer 3pt attempts?


3. Who needs to shoot more?

Harrington and Jackson lead the team in missed field goal attempts, with 40 and 42 respectively. That works out to 13.0 misses per 48 minutes for Harrington and 12.8 for Jackson, who, like last year has played the most minutes through the first five games. Jasikevisius ranks 3rd, chucking misses at the rate of 12.3 per 48 (actually 19 misses in 74 total minutes of play). Jermaine has 30 misses, which factors to 10.8 misses per game. Jermaine has a higher FG% (.524) than either the #2 or #3 options (Harrington is .459 and Jackson is .323).

Is the shot distribution OK as it is, or do you want to see changes toward more high-percentage shots? If the latter, who should be taking more shots and what adjustments are needed to create those shots?

Unclebuck
11-09-2006, 01:52 PM
1) I think anyone who is honest has to be surprised at how fast the Pacers are playing. Admit it, you never thought Rick would do it.

2) I think 12.8 is a good number, but if you take away the two losses the Pacers probably average 8 or 9 in their wins

3) All I want Jackson to do is take good shots and that depends on who else is on the court and if anyone else is hot or if jax is hot himself. Jax is a player who can get a halfway decent shot off anytime he wants because of his height and the way he shoots it. But he needs to be more selective.

Saras is the opposite of Jackson, he has trouble getting decent shots, so he needs to shoot when he's open, but no more, he should never force shots

imawhat
11-09-2006, 02:00 PM
My main problem with # 2 isn't the quantity of the shots, but how/why they are taken. I feel like we could get a better shot on about half of the threes we're taking. It's the "settling" mentality that really hurts our team. And I notice that the style of play changes depending on the score. We're not hoisting up threes with a twenty point lead, but when down by ten we're looking for that shot.

Not sure how I feel about the other two statements.

Moses
11-09-2006, 02:05 PM
I think a problem we will face later on in the season is Rick's prevent offense.

If we are up by 10 in the 4th with 10 minutes to go, I get the feeling that we are going to stop playing the way that got us that lead and go into half-court sets to waste the clock..but not get us decent shots.

PacersFan83
11-09-2006, 02:06 PM
Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.

ajbry
11-09-2006, 05:45 PM
Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.

:laugh:

He hasn't found his shot yet, you overdramatic fool. If you actually know our players tendencies besides the almighty Harrison, you would know he's streaky. Besides, he hasn't been taking 15+ shots a game - he's been contributing extremely well in essentially every other aspect of the game.

Isaac
11-09-2006, 06:22 PM
Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.

Man have you been on troll mode for the last week or so.

D-BONE
11-09-2006, 06:30 PM
Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.

As inefficient as pretty much the entire team was last night, I guess you'd just prefer we take no shots. Or in the big picture, we could just dump it to JO and let him shot 50 shots a game. We'd be tough to defend. So Granger's underachieving and Jackson's atrocious. Who do you suggest we play the most minutes at SF/SG?

BruceLeeroy
11-09-2006, 06:32 PM
Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.

Don't worry I feel your pain.

:5stars:

BruceLeeroy
11-09-2006, 06:37 PM
As inefficient as pretty much the entire team was last night, I guess you'd just prefer we take no shots. Or in the big picture, we could just dump it to JO and let him shot 50 shots a game. We'd be tough to defend. So Granger's underachieving and Jackson's atrocious. Who do you suggest we play the most minutes at SF/SG?

Quiseeee son!

:5stars:

Naptown_Seth
11-09-2006, 06:58 PM
1) I think anyone who is honest has to be surprised at how fast the Pacers are playing. Admit it, you never thought Rick would do it.

2) I think 12.8 is a good number, but if you take away the two losses the Pacers probably average 8 or 9 in their wins

3) All I want Jackson to do is take good shots and that depends on who else is on the court and if anyone else is hot or if jax is hot himself. Jax is a player who can get a halfway decent shot off anytime he wants because of his height and the way he shoots it. But he needs to be more selective.

Saras is the opposite of Jackson, he has trouble getting decent shots, so he needs to shoot when he's open, but no more, he should never force shots
I agree for the most part, though I certainly thought/knew an RC offense could play this way since they did from 98-2K.

I'd rather watch the OPP FG% vs FGA per game by the Pacers. If you can get more looks without giving up easier looks to the other team, then okay. But if taking more shots means giving up a lot more points, then what was the reasoning for it in the first place.

This team doesn't have shooters that want to make it an open jump shot competition.

I simply want more action coming to the rim on plays, rather than settling for jumpers.

I agree with Imawhat on the 3pt choices. Often there have been other looks behind those 3pt shots that they pass up. 3s from time to time are nice, but attack the rim, draw fouls and get 3 the hard way instead. It helps put the opponent on the baseline which extends their court, puts them in a tough defensive spot due to fouls, and creates a lot more chances for closer looks and tip-ins.

The biggest key to go with that is that OTHER PLAYERS must follow the ball to the rim. You can't just stand outside and watch a guy drive, at least once your own defender drops off you.

I'll take the 12-13 3PA because frankly it's been disgusting the previous 2 years seeing it near 20 on average and 25+ on many nights.


I'd like to see Harrison getting a few more FGAs per, I'd like to see AL and Jack limit their FGAs to 10-12 per night, with JO running maybe 14, Tins around 6-7. Granger could use 7-8 himself on most nights. Then give SarJas, Daniels, Harrison 5-6 as well.

That gets it to 15-16 left to hit the 83 area that can come from Foster, Armstrong, Marshall, Powell or perhaps give all of the starters one more shot.

I'd want everyone to make at least 40% to keep those, and really more like 43-45% (better for the bigs).

D-BONE
11-09-2006, 07:06 PM
Quiseeee son!

:5stars:

OK, I'm not your son. Now that we've got that out of the way, I would be more along that line of thinking but I don't think Quis has shown himself to be playing any better than Granger or Jackson.

In fact, other than the horrid showing against the Wiz, which goes for everyone by the way, I think Jack has been one of the better performers so far along with JO.

All this could change going forward. At which point changes would be fine. To this point, though, I don't think you can legitimately be that critical of Jackson.

Putnam
11-09-2006, 07:06 PM
1) I think anyone who is honest has to be surprised at how fast the Pacers are playing. Admit it, you never thought Rick would do it.

Glad to admit it. I think the improved speed is a substantial achievement.


2) I think 12.8 is a good number, but if you take away the two losses the Pacers probably average 8 or 9 in their wins

It's true, they shot 3s substantially more and worse in the losses:

1-7 beating Philly
6-16 beating Charlotte
8-19 beating the Knicks

7-16 losing to the Hornets
4-19 losing to the Wizards



3) All I want Jackson to do is take good shots and that depends on who else is on the court and if anyone else is hot or if jax is hot himself. Jax is a player who can get a halfway decent shot off anytime he wants because of his height and the way he shoots it. But he needs to be more selective.

Saras is the opposite of Jackson, he has trouble getting decent shots, so he needs to shoot when he's open, but no more, he should never force shots


The shooting guard often has to take a shot when no one else can. I'd much rather Jackson shot at a rate of .32 than we lose possessions via shot clock violations. But the fact that he is missing more shots than the 1 and 2 options tells me he's shooting a few too many. I'm not concerned about the shooting percentages as much as the number of misses. You can't draw a definite conclusion from 5 games (and Jermaine missed one of those). But it is something to keep an eye on.

PacersFan83
11-09-2006, 07:12 PM
:laugh:

He hasn't found his shot yet, you overdramatic fool. If you actually know our players tendencies besides the almighty Harrison, you would know he's streaky. Besides, he hasn't been taking 15+ shots a game - he's been contributing extremely well in essentially every other aspect of the game.


Man have you been on troll mode for the last week or so.

Why am I getting criticized for wanting a SG who isnt a terrible shooter? He hasnt found his shot yet? Im asusming by "yet" you mean his entire career, in which case I'd agree with you. He cant shoot, and it looks like he'll never learn.

40% from the field, 35% from downtown, 75% from the line, turnover prone, argues with officials, gets into violent altercations with 3 fingered mutants at 3 in the morning - seriously, whats not to love abotu Stephen Jackson? :laugh:

ajbry
11-09-2006, 07:28 PM
Why am I getting criticized for wanting a SG who isnt a terrible shooter? He hasnt found his shot yet? Im asusming by "yet" you mean his entire career, in which case I'd agree with you. He cant shoot, and it looks like he'll never learn.

40% from the field, 35% from downtown, 75% from the line, turnover prone, argues with officials, gets into violent altercations with 3 fingered mutants at 3 in the morning - seriously, whats not to love abotu Stephen Jackson? :laugh:

Okay, you are officially a troll. The last comment is completely unnecessary.

PacersFan83
11-09-2006, 07:36 PM
Not trolling, spealing my opinion - I think Marquis Daniels is 3x the player Stephen Jackson is, and I'd like to see their minutes be reversed, Quis playing 30+ and Jackson playing 20-something.

Anthem
11-09-2006, 09:26 PM
Jackson is atrocious. You just can't have someone that inefficient taking so many shots.
You pretty much hate all of our players, don't you?

Anthem
11-09-2006, 09:29 PM
Not trolling, spealing my opinion - I think Marquis Daniels is 3x the player Stephen Jackson is, and I'd like to see their minutes be reversed, Quis playing 30+ and Jackson playing 20-something.
You want to play Marquis more because he's a better shooter?

Now I've heard everything. :laugh:

BruceLeeroy
11-09-2006, 09:40 PM
OK, I'm not your son. Now that we've got that out of the way, I would be more along that line of thinking but I don't think Quis has shown himself to be playing any better than Granger or Jackson.

In fact, other than the horrid showing against the Wiz, which goes for everyone by the way, I think Jack has been one of the better performers so far along with JO.

All this could change going forward. At which point changes would be fine. To this point, though, I don't think you can legitimately be that critical of Jackson.

D-BONE I hope you know that's just a figure of speach. No disrespect intended.

I'll admit I'm a Jackson hater but he has played very well so far this season. His shots not falling as usual but he's kept his head in the game and has played great D, but we're only 5 games in and I thought his body language last night was typical of the old Jack. I realize this is a new year and everyone deserves a clean slate and I've done that, but he's been around long enough for some of us to form a legitament opinion of him.

:5stars:

kidthecat
11-10-2006, 01:05 AM
When has Jackson ever been an efficient two-guard? Who can honestly say that? He's always relied on volume to score--whether or not that is an effective strategy is up for debate. However, the chemistry (the oh-so-important chemistry) seems to have improven and Jackson is a contributor in that regard as well as providing adequate defense. Way to be reactive to everything, folk.

Naptown_Seth
11-10-2006, 01:24 AM
That 3pt shooting vs NO/OKC is actually a nice %. Combine that with winning the TO battle and my question becomes "how did they lose that game again?" If they had just closed it out. That's one they'll really want back later on.

Jack - the fact is that as of now this would be by far his worst scoring season of his career. Sub 1.00 PPS is just crazy, and his 3P% is way, way off his career norm. 35% might not be Ray Allen time, but plenty of "good" players put it up like that and no one seems to mind...including when Jordan and Pippen did it (MJ never got over 37% except when they shortened the line and 10 of 15 seasons he shot 31% or worse).

Jack's Ast/TO is at 2.25, his steals/TO is 1.25, the steals are 2 per game right now, he just took 2 charges vs NY (not sure about the other games), and is fouling at below 2 per game. If his shot was falling he'd be the best player on the team right now. At his salary no one should expect him to be that.

We can probably assume that he'll find the shot, get in some hot streak like he does and see it get back to his norm, and if he can just keep a portion of what he's doing elsewhere on the court he'll continue to be a key player for the team.


You want to play Marquis more because he's a better shooter?

Now I've heard everything. :laugh:
No kidding. I may have the positive Daniels thread going, but even he knows better than to put up too many outside jumpers. He's not a true SG, he's more like a point SG/SF, a guy that handles the ball, drives it, keeps things moving. I'll take Jack's hot and cold streaks from outside over MD spotting up all night.



You pretty much hate all of our players, don't you?
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

IE, why should he let facts stand in the way of a good hatred. ;)

ajbry
11-10-2006, 02:10 AM
Very nicely done, as always, Naptown Seth.

D-BONE
11-10-2006, 07:16 AM
D-BONE I hope you know that's just a figure of speach. No disrespect intended.

I'll admit I'm a Jackson hater but he has played very well so far this season. His shots not falling as usual but he's kept his head in the game and has played great D, but we're only 5 games in and I thought his body language last night was typical of the old Jack. I realize this is a new year and everyone deserves a clean slate and I've done that, but he's been around long enough for some of us to form a legitament opinion of him.

:5stars:

Very well, BruceLeeroy. Apologies for my misinterpretation. I also understand why some people are so negative on Jack from a bigger picture point of view. However, to me he's still, unfortunately, our best SG option.

If Quis posed any deep threat (for him I mean outside 14 feet) I might agree. Besides whats his FG%? Like 38% or something. I think Quis has good D, but not that significantly better than what we're getting from Jack so far this year.

What I'd like to see get some minutes upon OG's return is both Jack and Quis in with OG, JO, and fill in the blank with somebody who can board-Al or Jeff. Al probably better since he's a scoring threat. We'd be small but if we could board we could definitely run. D would be strong with the potnetial to convert some TOs into points, too. I suppose DG could be tossed in there somwhere also.

imawhat
11-10-2006, 01:49 PM
Opp. FG%/Pacers FGA by game (Outcome) TO Pacers FG%

47.4/86 (106-99 W) 17 40.7
44.0/80 (91-100 L) 12 40.0
43.0/88 (109-95 W) 14 52.3
45.1/83 (97-86 W) 21 45.1
51.8/83 (91-117 L) 24 38.6


So far the stats have been completely random. I see no trends, but there has to be something there.

imawhat
11-10-2006, 02:04 PM
Here's an interesting stat...it's FTA for each game

41
24
11
18
31

So far, our two best games have been the ones with the fewest free throws. Normally more free throws would suggest that our team is playing more aggressively, which you would think is a result of better shot selection and a sign of energy, right? More free throw attempts also mean more stops and more disruptions of flow. Most likely these stats are coincidence, but maybe the disruptions are helping our opponents since we're fast and athletic. The stops give opponents a chance to rest for a few seconds. It sounds crazy and irrational, but it could be a huge factor, especially early in the season.

Naptown_Seth
11-11-2006, 01:27 AM
Opp. FG%/Pacers FGA by game (Outcome) TO Pacers FG%

47.4/86 (106-99 W) 17 40.7
44.0/80 (91-100 L) 12 40.0
43.0/88 (109-95 W) 14 52.3
45.1/83 (97-86 W) 21 45.1
51.8/83 (91-117 L) 24 38.6


So far the stats have been completely random. I see no trends, but there has to be something there.
Did you see the stat tonight that goes along these lines. Before the game the Pacers were 5th in points in transition (or was it off TOs?...guess I need to go to the tape :) ). Anyway, whichever it was the bad part was they were also the worst in the NBA, dead last, in giving up points in the same manner (either in trans. or off TOs).

That number IIRC was also a bit higher against the Pacers than for them. So they are keeping an uptempo game, they just aren't really winning it so far.


Another stats, just OPP FG% the last few seasons...
02-03 42.8 (Pacers FGA = 80.6)
03-04 43.2 (Pacers FGA = 77.1...ie, RC showed up)
04-05 44.0 (Pacers FGA = 75.2)
05-06 43.5 (Pacers FGA = 76.5)
06-07 46.2 (Pacers FGA = 83.8)
- And tonight vs ORL the Magic shot 43.8 with the Pacers taking 79 FGAs

So tonight will help but it also drops the FGA per number a little as well. The very early results suggest that they have taken a hit in the OPP FG% due to sloppy up-tempo play. What makes it worse is when you look at their own FG% and PPS ranks as a team. Down near the bottom.

As productive as its been so far in getting wins, it's been ugly and disjointed along the way. Tonight was another great example. They do move the ball to the lane, but the problem is that often they get into spots with nothing to do next - a case of the "Fred Jones" breaks out, as Boyle might say. :)

The first half really had Tins, Al, and Daniels especially all doing this, getting themselves stuck even though they had the right idea in mind. Once they learn to make use of that penetration and work in a more confined (ie, not stretched to the 3pt arc) offensive space I think they can really up their FTAs and hurt teams. Right now they try to do that, they just aren't very good at it.

Naptown_Seth
11-11-2006, 01:31 AM
BTW, on Daniels going to the lane, he's still freaking awesome at it. He crossed over Turk (or was it Darko) once and was in for the bucket in a flash. He seems able to get into the paint anytime he wants to even though it doesn't mean he has a good look when he gets there. Rick needs to figure out a way to really make this work for the team.

imawhat
11-11-2006, 02:39 PM
Did you see the stat tonight that goes along these lines. Before the game the Pacers were 5th in points in transition (or was it off TOs?...guess I need to go to the tape :) ). Anyway, whichever it was the bad part was they were also the worst in the NBA, dead last, in giving up points in the same manner (either in trans. or off TOs).

That number IIRC was also a bit higher against the Pacers than for them. So they are keeping an uptempo game, they just aren't really winning it so far.


Another stats, just OPP FG% the last few seasons...
02-03 42.8 (Pacers FGA = 80.6)
03-04 43.2 (Pacers FGA = 77.1...ie, RC showed up)
04-05 44.0 (Pacers FGA = 75.2)
05-06 43.5 (Pacers FGA = 76.5)
06-07 46.2 (Pacers FGA = 83.8)
- And tonight vs ORL the Magic shot 43.8 with the Pacers taking 79 FGAs

So tonight will help but it also drops the FGA per number a little as well. The very early results suggest that they have taken a hit in the OPP FG% due to sloppy up-tempo play. What makes it worse is when you look at their own FG% and PPS ranks as a team. Down near the bottom.



Yeah, I saw that stat and immediately thought of this thread. It's the points we're giving up in transition that hurt us. 5th in fast break points, 30th in opp. fast break points/game...yikes.


I think two things could completely tip the scale, and one is better execution on our fast breaks. For instance, tonight we saw Armstrong blow a wide open layup and Jackson mishandle a pass for an easy two. When we don't convert it allows the opposing team to get up court for transition buckets. In other words, gaining four points on transition could easily take away four points that would've been scored off of our misses. And then, of course, cutting our turnovers (esp. errant passes) down 3/4 per game will lower that number.

I think both of those are easily fixable, and the way we ran in transition in the late 3rd quarter last night was easily the best we've ran all year. Guys were spacing, making quick passes, and looking to finish at the right time.


What an increase in shots per game. I had no idea it was that much different than last year.