PDA

View Full Version : Glued to the bench



Skaut_Ech
11-14-2006, 09:34 AM
After reading the discussions following the Bulls game, rebounding seems to be the hot topic right now with us. I got the general feeling that most of us think that we need to bring someone in. Someone who's a strong rebounder to compliment Jeff Foster. We don't feel that this team, as it's comprised with ever be a strong rebounding team.

Barring a major trade (Jackson, Tinsley, etc.), I got to thinking about our roster. Donnie doesn't like to trade a guy way until he knows what he has. He's made that clear. Using that logic, you'd have to think he'd take a wait and see attitude for the whole season on Marshall, Powell, Maceo, Marquis and Greene. Right now, the one guy who seems to be a known quantity is Harrison and I think he could be the first to go in a trade. Big, young center are a very tradable commodity.

So, anyways, back to rebounding. Out of curiosity, I wanted to take the forums temperature on some guys who are glued to the bench on thier teams for various reasons. I thnk all offer variations on helping this team with adding another rebounder and I wonder what you guys would think about going after any of these guys:


Jackie Butler (http://hoopshype.com/players/jackie_butler.htm): Along with Darrell Armstrong, this is a guy I really wanted us to pickup this summer. Jackie makes me think a bit of a Stromile Swift type player. His game is all around the basket. He's very aggresive and just need some coaching to temper his enthusiasm. Spurs have him stuck behind Oberto and Elson.
Joe Smith: Not a monster rebounder, but has the talent for it, along with being a good scorer, which would keep defenses honest. A veteran guy who would be a stable influence.
Jamaal Sampson: Another aggressive rebounder who seems to get stuck on teams with good big men depth. He's a bit of an X-factor.
Reggie Evans: Part of the Denver Trifecta. Too many big men with real rebounding skills wasting on their bench. They need to adress their roster imbalance at SOME point. I could really see us taking advantage of the situation.
Melvin Ely: Even with all the injuries to his team, he can't get any P.T. I have to think he's not happy where he's at and i'm sure we have some low cost cogs whom would fit well with Charlotte, keeping with their fiscal gameplan.
Dan Gadzuric: Some on here have called him a Jeff Foster clone. Would it be that bad to have two Jeffs?
Victor Khyrapa: I love this guy. He's pretty rough and tumble and plays big. Trading with Chicago, though...I dunno. He's buried behind the Bulls giving their newest guys PT, then being behind Deng and Nocioni on the depth chart.
Alan Henderson: Veteran guy, good rebounder and a team player. There would be no chemistry issues with this guy. He's be one of thos glue type guys to help keep a second unit cohesive.
Stromile Swift: A bundle of talent, but I hear that he may not be the smartest guy. I keep hearing that he's available.
So, that's my list. What guys appeal to you the most and why?

Unclebuck
11-14-2006, 10:02 AM
The only guy on your list I like at all is Jackie Butler and I don't him very much to begin with.

One thing I always bring up when someone mentions the Pacers bringing in a specialist whether it is a three point shooter, a defender, or a rebounder - how many minutes will that specialist get. If the specialist doesn't get off the bench then it won't help any.

None of those players will beat out Foster for playing time and Jeff is averaging only 18 minutes per game. So there just aren't any minutes for a rebounding specialist.

The rebounding solution involves the following:

- playing Jeff more - very likely
- getting the starters to rebound better. hopefully
- or make a major trade that would re-make the starting frontline into a better rebounding unit. very doubtful

The last thing the Pacers need is two rebounding specialist - you can't play jeff and another guy who is a soecialist like him it just won't work, especially with the backcourt and small forward that we have - who are complementary offensive players to begin with.

Speed
11-14-2006, 10:30 AM
The only guy on your list I like at all is Jackie Butler and I don't him very much to begin with.

One thing I always bring up when someone mentions the Pacers bringing in a specialist whether it is a three point shooter, a defender, or a rebounder - how many minutes will that specialist get. If the specialist doesn't get off the bench then it won't help any.

None of those players will beat out Foster for playing time and Jeff is averaging only 18 minutes per game. So there just aren't any minutes for a rebounding specialist.

The rebounding solution involves the following:

- playing Jeff more - very likely
- getting the starters to rebound better. hopefully
- or make a major trade that would re-make the starting frontline into a better rebounding unit. very doubtful

The last thing the Pacers need is two rebounding specialist - you can't play jeff and another guy who is a soecialist like him it just won't work, especially with the backcourt and small forward that we have - who are complementary offensive players to begin with.

My take too, as well as Carlise according to today's paper. I've always thought Jeff is a great in about 25 minutes a games, you start to get diminishing returns after that and any less you are under utilizing him as a game changer. I like him off the bench now and always have because he ups the ante, he increases the intensity.

As far as those guys you listed, I like Butler, he's a hoss. I like Evans I think he's a smallish poor man's DD.

Speed
11-14-2006, 10:37 AM
Right now, the one guy who seems to be a known quantity is Harrison and I think he could be the first to go in a trade. Big, young center are a very tradable commodity.



I'd agree here he has good trade value, but I think you do need that one real true center on the roster. David frustrates me like crazy, because he can utterly and completely dominate a 4 minute period of a game, but be completely and utterly invisible for weeks.

Skaut_Ech
11-14-2006, 11:05 AM
One thing I always bring up when someone mentions the Pacers bringing in a specialist whether it is a three point shooter, a defender, or a rebounder - how many minutes will that specialist get. If the specialist doesn't get off the bench then it won't help any.

None of those players will beat out Foster for playing time and Jeff is averaging only 18 minutes per game. So there just aren't any minutes for a rebounding specialist.



Just playing Devils' advocate, I would point out that our rotations are by no means written in the proverbial stone, at this point.

Maybe you fudge Harrington/Jo/Jackson's minutes to make a 10-15 minute window for a "specialist" (your word, not mine). Maybe you don't play Marshall, or Powell and maybe a trade would lend itself to a minor hole in the roster anyways.

I don't like the word specialist, becasue it denotes a one dimensional player. Steve Kerr was a specialist. Rodman was a specialist. I'm talking about a player who's strength is rebounding. Not someone whom that's ALL he can do.

Personally, I like Ely and Butler from my list with Swift on the radar.

As I said in another thread, I think the rebounding will work itself out, for the most part. We've never been a strong rebounding team and I don't think that's going to change, but given what I've been reading, I wondered who people would best like to see whom appears available for a small price.

Putnam
11-14-2006, 11:12 AM
Last year, Foster had the best rebounds per minute stats in the NBA. This year he's right up there again, with a rate of 19.2 per 40 -- just slightly below LaMarcus Aldridge and better than everyone else in the NBA. (according to www.nba.com/statistics)


Foster's only getting 18.2 minutes. Carlisle says he plans to give Foster more minutes. Speed suggests he's effective for up to 25 minutes, but he may contribute more.

Do we have a problem with rebounding that can be solved by adding another player? I don't think so. Unless a player is on the floor, he can't contribute, and as Uncle Buck says we can't keep a rebounding specialist on the floor for 48 minutes.

Our scorers and defenders also need to rebound or box out so a team mate can rebound.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-14-2006, 11:46 AM
I know it's unlikely, but Marcus Camby has always intrigued me. His salary is in the 8 million dollar range thru '09-'10. He has an injury history. He can rebound, block shots and provide some inside scoring. He's 32 years old though and again with the injuries. The Nuggets would also likely require one of our starting five in a Camby trade. JO,Al and Granger aren't going anywhere and we don't have anybody on the roster who could step in for Tinsley or Jackson in an extended starting role in the backcourt. I'd rather wait it out and see than over-react and end up doing something silly.

McKeyFan
11-14-2006, 12:31 PM
you can't play jeff and another guy who is a soecialist like him

Wow. I was unaware of Jeff's political views. And didn't realize it could keep you from playing.

Unclebuck
11-14-2006, 12:37 PM
Wow. I was unaware of Jeff's political views. And didn't realize it could keep you from playing.

You certainly don't want too many socialist on one team and you simply can't have two socialist in the lineup at the same time. TPTB believe as I do.

Slick Pinkham
11-14-2006, 01:34 PM
A guy who fits the description of a veteran tough rebounder who can play an uptempo style and not be an offensive liabilty is Kurt Thomas. He's a bit old and was injured last year, but it don't seem to be a lingering injury situation.

Phoenix seems to be letting his minutes shrivel away as Amare plays more and they work Jalen into the rotation.

The cost would likely be fairly low.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-14-2006, 01:48 PM
Actually, Thomas is making 7-8 mil a year over the next two. So we'd have to trade either a superior player or put together two-three players. I don't see Phoenix wanting anything we could put together and I don't see it really being worth it.

It would have to be....
Al straight up
Jack & one of the IR guys
Tins and one of the 11-15 guys
Runi & two or three of the 11-15 guys

For 34 year old, under sized c/f (6-9 235) 8 & 11 career guy who's 8 & 11 days are behind him.

The reality of the situation....there are no cheap big guys we can acquire with the pieces we'd be willing to part with. If you send Jack or Tins away another problem is created by the void the leave. We have no point guard behind Tins who can man that spot and no 2 guard behind Jack who can man that spot.

CableKC
11-14-2006, 02:05 PM
Of the list....the only possibilities that I can see that would make any sense is Joe Smith ( mainly cuz of his Expiring Contract and vet experience as a rental for the rest of the season ) and ( I know its risky ) StroSwift ( if we want to go for the low basketball IQ but atheltic rebounding shotblocking player that isn't a complete offensive liability ).

I'm more concerned about what we are going to do with Harrison....despite the need to put in a Big Body from Time to Time to simply cause mismatches and/or act as a huge screen.....he's buried on the bench. Either use him....give him his 10-15 minutes and his 5 fouls....or trade him while he has some trade value.

3rdStrike
11-14-2006, 02:40 PM
There's no need. The Pacers were outrebounding the competition by a healthy margin up until the Bulls game. There's an extreme amount of overreaction going on.

Players who can't score are detrimental to their teams in the new NBA.

OakMoses
11-14-2006, 03:05 PM
Players who can't score are detrimental to their teams in the new NBA.

Ben Wallace wasn't all that detrimental with his 19 rebounds. Though I agree that there is a little bit of over-reacting going on.

As for David Harrison, what about the rumor that the Bulls are interested? If they are, maybe we could use Harrison to get Chris Duhon away from them. They won't be able to re-sign him with all the money they're giving Wallace and Hinrich, and want to give Gordon and Deng. We'd have a glut of players at the PG slot, but maybe we can add Tinsley to the trade and get PJ Brown. That would get us out from under Tinsley's contract and get us a younger, less-injured point guard and a capable, good rebounding big guy who's salary comes off the books in a couple of years.

D23
11-14-2006, 03:16 PM
All I know is this - I'd never want Reggie Evans near this team. After hearing how dirty of a player he has always been, then witnessing him groping Chris Kaman in the jigglypuffs while going for a rebound... no thanks. We don't need any more thuggish tactics on the team.

Putnam
11-14-2006, 03:50 PM
There's no need. The Pacers were outrebounding the competition by a healthy margin up until the Bulls game. There's an extreme amount of overreaction going on.

Right-o.

Through seven games, the Pacers rebounded at a rate of .176 per minute. The Pacers' opponents rebounded at a rate of .175 per minutes -- pulling down two fewer total rebounds than the Pacers. Set aside the Bulls game, and the Pacers were owning the boards.

First observation: as 3rdstrike says, we don't have a rebounding problem. Maybe a problem with sealing the deal and ensuring a victory. But rebounding is not a consistent or glaring problem.

Second observation: There is plenty of rebounding skill on the roster. Below is each player's per minute rebounding rate through the first seven games. (Admittedly, this is based on as few as 8 minutes.)


.40 Jeff Foster
.30 Josh Powell
.25 Maceo Baston
.23 Jermaine O'Neal
.21 Al Harrington
.21 David Harrison
.17 Danny Granger
.16 Rawle Marshall
.14 Jamaal Tinsley
.12 Marquis Daniels
.10 Sarunas Jasikevicius
.10 Darrell Armstrong
.09 Stephen Jackson

There are a couple of guys who ought to be trying harder, and a couple of guys who might deserve more minutes. But there's no evidence in the game data to support the case that we need to trade for a rebounder.

Mourning
11-14-2006, 04:12 PM
You certainly don't want too many socialist on one team and you simply can't have two socialist in the lineup at the same time. TPTB believe as I do.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Bball
11-14-2006, 06:34 PM
Instead of trading, how about we try Josh Powell in some meaningful minutes and a consistent role?

Depending on how he does with a few games under his belt we might look at our needs altogether differently.

-Bball

AesopRockOn
11-14-2006, 06:52 PM
Nay on Ely; he has a bad 'tude.

Los Angeles
11-14-2006, 06:58 PM
Bball and I ride together.







I think I'm going to be sick.

;)

CableKC
11-14-2006, 07:13 PM
I agree....maybe Powell or Baston should get some minutes....since they were brought in to provide some defense and do the dirty work that no one else does :shrug:

Bball
11-14-2006, 07:53 PM
Bball and I ride together.







I think I'm going to be sick.

;)


.... Talk about making a guy reconsider the validity of his position!

;)

-Bball

PacerMan
11-14-2006, 09:42 PM
I think we'll be seeing more Foster/Jermaine/Al very quickly. That will solve a lot of the problem. Whether Danny plays 2 or moves to the 2nd squad is the question. I'd really like to see more of Danny and Daniels together on the 2nd squad with Sarunas. Run Baby Run. But then I'd like to see Danger displace Mr.Jackson. :)

3rdStrike
11-14-2006, 11:09 PM
I like Rick Carlisle as much as anyone, but if he benches Danny Granger he should be fired. Granger is the best perimeter defender (after the injured Greene) and the most versatile scorer on the team.

AesopRockOn
11-14-2006, 11:37 PM
I like Rick Carlisle as much as anyone, but if he benches Danny Granger he should be fired. Granger is the best perimeter defender (after the injured Greene) and the most versatile scorer on the team.

:laugh:

Major Cold
11-15-2006, 10:49 AM
Look at our losses and rebound comparison in comparison to those losses:


Hornets 54
Pacers 34---JO has 6

Wiz 39
Pacers 49 JO dnp

Bulls 51
Pacers 28 JO 8

We are getting outrebounded in losses

opponets 144
Pacers 111

But that loss to the Wiz was due to poor defense and their high FG%.

So when a team is shotting 38% from the field you need to rebound. Last game we did not do that at all. We have a rebound problem. It is not consistent. Is there a bigger issue (floor spacing?) that might in the end result in poor rebounding from particular games? All in all JO gets paid high dollar to be a high end player. He is averaging under 8 rpg (7.8) and yet the teams leading rebonder (Foster 7.3). He needs to step up aside from injuries and lead this team in scoring, rebounding, and blocks. Lord knows he is getting paid to do it.

Putnam
11-15-2006, 01:27 PM
Look at our losses and rebound comparison in comparison to those losses:


Hornets 54
Pacers 34---JO has 6

Wiz 39
Pacers 49 JO dnp

Bulls 51
Pacers 28 JO 8

We are getting outrebounded in losses

opponets 144
Pacers 111


So when a team is shotting 38% from the field you need to rebound. Last game we did not do that at all. We have a rebound problem. It is not consistent. Is there a bigger issue (floor spacing?) that might in the end result in poor rebounding from particular games?

Good post.

The totals show one thing, but you dug deeper and found that the contrast between wins and losses shows something else. As you say, the Pacers do have a rebounding problem.

And then, you ask the right follow-up question. What are the Pacers doing differently that leads to really bad rebounding some times and very good rebounding in other games?

Is it the opponent?
Is it substitution patterns?
- Which players are playing more/less than their optimum?
- Which combinations of players are most effective?
Do we play differently when we are behind?


The answer to these and other related questions could be very interesting.

Still, I think the response to the original question in this thread is, No we don't want to trade for a new player to come in and be a rebounding specialist. Or socialist.

Better effort and consistency, plus more minutes for the better rebounding players, will correct the problem better than a trade.

FrenchConnection
11-15-2006, 02:13 PM
Good post.

The totals show one thing, but you dug deeper and found that the contrast between wins and losses shows something else. As you say, the Pacers do have a rebounding problem.

And then, you ask the right follow-up question. What are the Pacers doing differently that leads to really bad rebounding some times and very good rebounding in other games?

Is it the opponent?
Is it substitution patterns?
- Which players are playing more/less than their optimum?
- Which combinations of players are most effective?
Do we play differently when we are behind?


The answer to these and other related questions could be very interesting.

Still, I think the response to the original question in this thread is, No we don't want to trade for a new player to come in and be a rebounding specialist. Or socialist.

Better effort and consistency, plus more minutes for the better rebounding players, will correct the problem better than a trade.

I would argue that in the Bulls game, it was the opponent. People are just afraid, and justifably so, of going into Ben Wallace's area. In the Wizards game, everything went wrong and rebounding was just a small part of it. Getting out-rebounded by the Hornets is the most troubling of these three games.

CableKC
11-15-2006, 02:18 PM
I look at it this way......when we shoot poorly...either cuz our primary scorers are having a poor shooting night or we play a team that actually tries on defense.....we are going to be more dependant on our rebounding. If we don't rebound the missed shots...we lose games.

Of the 3 losses ( with the Wizards game being an anamoly against a high-scoring team ), we played the Hornets and the Bulls....2 teams that are in the top 6 in keeping opponents under 94ppg.

Maybe its a matter of adjustment on Carlisle's end or recognizing that we are having a poor offensive shooting night ( especially when we are on the road and/or playing a top defensive team ) we may want to go with a bigger lineup with Tinsley/Granger/Harrington/JONeal/Foster and use more roleplayers like Powell and Baston off the bench to get those rebounders in to help out on the boards when our shots aren't dropping.

I don't know what the solution is....I just know that any real deficiencies in rebounding surface when we can't make baskets.

NuffSaid
11-15-2006, 02:40 PM
The obvious thing to do to address the team's rebounding issue is to increase Foster's minutes. The question becomes where does he get the minutes?

Everyone seems to be more concerned with either: a) stiffling Granger's growth by either moving him to another position altogether (i.e., SG) or bringing him off the bench; or, b) starting Foster and moving Al to SF.

Ideally, option b) seems the better choice. It's certainly the route I'd take. It's about putting the right mixture of players at various skill-sets on the floor at the right time. It's why I've been an advocate of re-instating Foster back into the starting rotation, and either bringing Granger off the bench or moving him over as the starting SG thereby moving Jax2 to SF.

To many, such shuffling doesn't make much sense because those who adamently oppose this idea would rather see Granger at SF whether he starts or not. But when you consider how such moves would allow each player to play more toward their strengths, as well as give the team a much needed shot in their defensive, it makes sense.

Look at it this way:

The issue of rebounding will be addressed regardless whether RC finds more minutes for Foster among the 2nd unit or if he starts him. The only question is where does he find the minutes?
Mixing Greene and Granger could make for a very smothering defensive in the backcourt when needed. You couple them with our "Udonis Haslem" clone, Josh Powell at PF, and I'd say we retain a good defensive presence no matter who's on the floor.
Granger's game has only recently started to come alive. Now, all we need is for Jax2's game to show itself. Defensely, he's done a pretty good job. Offensively, he's struggled despite scoring in double-digits in all but 1 game thus far. I think that by moving him to SF he'd get more touches and probrably get more into a rythme sooner. Granger could still be very effective from the 2-Guard becasue he's a much more efficient scorer from the field than pretty much anyone on the team.
Moving Al to SF would do exactly what RC has invisioned doing since re-acquiring - bringing both JO and Al off both sides of the low-blocks where both players are interchangeable offensively. He hasn't really been able to get that going thus far and I think it has more to do with one player shifting more to a defensive/rebounding mindset while allowing the other to focus more on scoring. Moving Foster back as the starting Center will allow these two to do what they do, baby!And there's my 2-cents worth. :)

sweabs
11-15-2006, 03:20 PM
David Harrison. I remember during that draft I was all prepared to get Kevin Martin; and he had to go 4 picks ahead of us. Wouldn't that have been nice? Of course, there was that other opportunity to get Mr. Martin, but Ron had to screw us over one last time.

CableKC
11-15-2006, 06:01 PM
Use Harrison or trade him....don't let him sit on the bench doing nothing....If there is no intention to use him in this offense or even in the future....then trade him while he has some value.

I think that Harrison would be able to at least fetch us an expiring contract and a 2nd roundpick.

Major Cold
11-15-2006, 07:05 PM
I really don't see us trading either. At least not until late Jan or Feb. And thats if we are hovering around .500 or worse (unless Walsh desperatley wants a pick next year).

I went to the Hornets game and it seemed as if the Pacers lacked spacing on offense. And having Granger and Al going for loose balls all out like they do it jarbled things up. Being out of postion on defense results in being out of place on the defensive rebounds. I think I defense is aggressive, but at what cost. We don't have an anchor down low to grab those boards. JO has been on a block binge and he has been out of place on rebounds.

Analyze all we want but the reality is we have an attitude of every rebound is ours. Hopefully Foster can be contagious on at least JO. If he is averaging 10, Harrington 8, and granger 7. You have over half your rebounds on three guys. Throw in Fosters 5-6 (realistically if the others rebound better he can't grab 7 rpg) and the guards combine total of 6. that leaves less than ten rebounds for the other players to pick up if we shoot in the low to mid 40% FG%.

Tonights game against Boston determines whether we are the same team as last year. I want to be consistent. We don't play back to back home games until the first week of December so the players have got to win on the road or we could be in an early hole.