PDA

View Full Version : RC's use of Sarunas



rimock31
11-18-2006, 04:21 PM
So from what i've seen on other threads, it seems like we'd all agree that he's not being used properly IE: He's firstly a playmaker and floor leader and secondly a guy who can hit his shots when he's developped a rhythm.
Bottom line, he's not a guy you can put in the game for 2 minutes and expect him to just start draining threes before breaking a sweat. I just don't understand how RC doesn't see this. Bottom line, Saras has looked amazing the past two years in the games he's played significant minutes at the point.
For that, SOME of the blame for his lack of success has to be laid on Rick Carlisle. I'm 100% confident that if Sarunas had as much leaway to make mistakes as Jackson or Tinsley do, he would be one of the top 5 backup point guards in the league right now, if not the starter for this team.

What I would like to see: Give Sarunas 10 games in a row to play 20 minutes as backup point guard without pulling him every time he makes a mistake and sitting him for 5 games. If this was done, I guarantee he would thrive, especially since he's shown great chemistry with our other bench players.

What are your thoughts?

Pitons
11-18-2006, 04:55 PM
So from what i've seen on other threads, it seems like we'd all agree that he's not being used properly IE: He's firstly a playmaker and floor leader and secondly a guy who can hit his shots when he's developped a rhythm.
Bottom line, he's not a guy you can put in the game for 2 minutes and expect him to just start draining threes before breaking a sweat. I just don't understand how RC doesn't see this. Bottom line, Saras has looked amazing the past two years in the games he's played significant minutes at the point.
For that, SOME of the blame for his lack of success has to be laid on Rick Carlisle. I'm 100% confident that if Sarunas had as much leaway to make mistakes as Jackson or Tinsley do, he would be one of the top 5 backup point guards in the league right now, if not the starter for this team.

What I would like to see: Give Sarunas 10 games in a row to play 20 minutes as backup point guard without pulling him every time he makes a mistake and sitting him for 5 games. If this was done, I guarantee he would thrive, especially since he's shown great chemistry with our other bench players.

What are your thoughts?

My opinion - Saras doesn't fit in RC schemes and maybe in Pacers team. He should have chosen other team to play for several years ago. If it lasts, he should be traded or whatever.

Israfan
11-18-2006, 04:57 PM
So from what i've seen on other threads, it seems like we'd all agree that he's not being used properly IE: He's firstly a playmaker and floor leader and secondly a guy who can hit his shots when he's developped a rhythm.
Bottom line, he's not a guy you can put in the game for 2 minutes and expect him to just start draining threes before breaking a sweat. I just don't understand how RC doesn't see this. Bottom line, Saras has looked amazing the past two years in the games he's played significant minutes at the point.
For that, SOME of the blame for his lack of success has to be laid on Rick Carlisle. I'm 100% confident that if Sarunas had as much leaway to make mistakes as Jackson or Tinsley do, he would be one of the top 5 backup point guards in the league right now, if not the starter for this team.

What I would like to see: Give Sarunas 10 games in a row to play 20 minutes as backup point guard without pulling him every time he makes a mistake and sitting him for 5 games. If this was done, I guarantee he would thrive, especially since he's shown great chemistry with our other bench players.

What are your thoughts?

100% Support.
We had this threads in PD numerous times last year.

BlueNGold
11-18-2006, 05:00 PM
The truth is somewhere in between the first two posts. Saras will have his moments if left in the game at PG. The problem is, those moments come in two vastly different forms. That's why he is most definitely not starting material in the NBA. He is too much of a liability on D and turns the ball over when asked to dribble. These shortcomings also make it questionable that he is the best choice as a backup.

ALF68
11-18-2006, 05:02 PM
So from what i've seen on other threads, it seems like we'd all agree that he's not being used properly IE: He's firstly a playmaker and floor leader and secondly a guy who can hit his shots when he's developped a rhythm.
Bottom line, he's not a guy you can put in the game for 2 minutes and expect him to just start draining threes before breaking a sweat. I just don't understand how RC doesn't see this. Bottom line, Saras has looked amazing the past two years in the games he's played significant minutes at the point.
For that, SOME of the blame for his lack of success has to be laid on Rick Carlisle. I'm 100% confident that if Sarunas had as much leaway to make mistakes as Jackson or Tinsley do, he would be one of the top 5 backup point guards in the league right now, if not the starter for this team.

What I would like to see: Give Sarunas 10 games in a row to play 20 minutes as backup point guard without pulling him every time he makes a mistake and sitting him for 5 games. If this was done, I guarantee he would thrive, especially since he's shown great chemistry with our other bench players.

What are your thoughts?
I agree with you, how in the hell can any player expect to succeed if he is pulled after makeing a mistake and only gets 2 minutes to get it done. How many times have we watched as Jax or Tins turn the ball over or take bad shots or don't block out or go after a rebound? I was a Rick supporter but the more that I see of his coaching it makes me wonder.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 05:06 PM
I'm not sure Saras would produce to the level necessary to prove worthy of a significant spot in the rotation, but I agree that with the odd PT patterns an argument can be made that he's never been allowed to establish a comfort zone.

So I'd be OK with it. Or maybe reduce it a few games if he's really struggling. And I'd honestly like to see Carlisle try a similar experiment as the season progresses with some of the other new guys. That experiment could be ongoing but stopped if a player or two did well in their stint thus earning set rotation minutes.

It's ironic that we're still trapped in this issue of not being able to establish more definitive rotation hierachies. Depth has advantages and notable disadvantages.

The JT and Jack factor also mucks up the works in minutes distribution b/c they are in that limbo relation to their value to the team. The fans have already ostracized them and it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall to see how they really interact with the other players. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, probably just fine. But we can't just bench one of them indefinitely if TPTB are holding out any hope of moving one or both.

rimock31
11-18-2006, 06:30 PM
so I think we can all agree that RC is a good coach, but not the right coach for this team?

Alpolloloco
11-18-2006, 06:35 PM
Everyone on here agreed in the first games we used Saras the right way, and he produced greatly. After he hurt his back we are back at the situation from last year. What went wrong with the team concept the last games? And how can we get Saras back in te role from the beginning of the season?

dlewyus
11-18-2006, 09:39 PM
What I would like to see: Give Sarunas 10 games in a row to play 20 minutes as backup point guard without pulling him every time he makes a mistake and sitting him for 5 games. If this was done, I guarantee he would thrive, especially since he's shown great chemistry with our other bench players.

What are your thoughts?

It might be worth a try, but if he fails, he should go to the IR for the rest of the season. I don't see it working. He puts too much of a burden on the other players to cover his butt. When he's out there its 4 on 5.

rimock31
11-18-2006, 10:35 PM
Cumon man, ur telling me he's that much worse of a defender than Tinsley? Have u been watching any pacers games the past few years?

Anthem
11-19-2006, 12:33 AM
I wish we'd trade Sarunas to another team.

Just for the forum's sake.

Alpolloloco
11-19-2006, 05:53 AM
I could say the same thing for Tinsley, Jackson or even JO.

Naptown_Seth
11-19-2006, 08:03 AM
so I think we can all agree that RC is a good coach, but not the right coach for this team?
No, we don't all agree to that.



But I can agree that the thing Sarunas does best is make Tinsley not look like the worst player on the court, at least against MIL. Both were destroyed over and over again on defense, and generally struggled to make anything happen offensively. Yet no matter how rough Tins looked, SarJas could always tweek it a little worse. It's getting really frustrating.

And if you are one of those people still living in the fantasy world where Sarunas only makes bad plays because he's at SG, get over it. That's not the reality this season. The other night and tonight he was filling the PG role most of the time he was out there. There were times that Armstrong swung into the SG role even with Saras bringing the ball up and running (eh, whatever you call that slop) the play.


Again, I'm not giving Tins a pass on this, he was only just slightly better than Sarunas. The two of them were the worst players on the court for the Pacers all night. The only thing Rick does wrong is play them, but he kinda has to considering his options at the moment.

I'm sure a box score only person, someone that didn't watch the game, thinks the numbers for both look fine. The problem is that Williams was able to score or create at will, as was Bell when Jack was put on Redd (which happened a lot).

Two of Sarunas turnovers were freaking TRAVELING.

Once a 4 on 2 fastbreak was coming right at him with Jack behind him, Jack was clearly screaming (and pointing though Sar could see it) for him to go to the shooter. He doesn't, he doesn't, he doesn't...so just when Jack gives up on him going out there and starts to leave the lane to cover the shooter himself, assuming now that SarJas has decided to take the ball, off goes SarJas out of the lane leaving it wide open for the layup totally undefended right as the ball gets to him, which regardless of Jack begs the question, what did Sarunas think he was doing by moving out of the way at that point? It's not like the pass had gone to the shooter. He'd already committed himself to defending the ball, the guy was right on top of him.


He (and Tins) did this stuff all night long. The difference is that Tinsley has actually played much better NBA basketball for entire seasons at a stretch, not just his first 2 months, so I can hold out a little hope with him. In fact I'm surprised because I think most fans thought his only problem was staying healthy. This has been the worst version of Tins we've seen yet (well, last month or so of last season was rough too).

Pitons
11-19-2006, 08:50 AM
No, we don't all agree to that.



But I can agree that the thing Sarunas does best is make Tinsley not look like the worst player on the court, at least against MIL. Both were destroyed over and over again on defense, and generally struggled to make anything happen offensively. Yet no matter how rough Tins looked, SarJas could always tweek it a little worse. It's getting really frustrating.

And if you are one of those people still living in the fantasy world where Sarunas only makes bad plays because he's at SG, get over it. That's not the reality this season. The other night and tonight he was filling the PG role most of the time he was out there. There were times that Armstrong swung into the SG role even with Saras bringing the ball up and running (eh, whatever you call that slop) the play.


Again, I'm not giving Tins a pass on this, he was only just slightly better than Sarunas. The two of them were the worst players on the court for the Pacers all night. The only thing Rick does wrong is play them, but he kinda has to considering his options at the moment.

I'm sure a box score only person, someone that didn't watch the game, thinks the numbers for both look fine. The problem is that Williams was able to score or create at will, as was Bell when Jack was put on Redd (which happened a lot).

Two of Sarunas turnovers were freaking TRAVELING.

Once a 4 on 2 fastbreak was coming right at him with Jack behind him, Jack was clearly screaming (and pointing though Sar could see it) for him to go to the shooter. He doesn't, he doesn't, he doesn't...so just when Jack gives up on him going out there and starts to leave the lane to cover the shooter himself, assuming now that SarJas has decided to take the ball, off goes SarJas out of the lane leaving it wide open for the layup totally undefended right as the ball gets to him, which regardless of Jack begs the question, what did Sarunas think he was doing by moving out of the way at that point? It's not like the pass had gone to the shooter. He'd already committed himself to defending the ball, the guy was right on top of him.


He (and Tins) did this stuff all night long. The difference is that Tinsley has actually played much better NBA basketball for entire seasons at a stretch, not just his first 2 months, so I can hold out a little hope with him. In fact I'm surprised because I think most fans thought his only problem was staying healthy. This has been the worst version of Tins we've seen yet (well, last month or so of last season was rough too).

The most effective players right now:

Darrell armstrong - +37
Sarunas Jasikevicius - +10
Jermaine O'neal - + 8
Jeff Foster - +6

That means when they are on the court (I don't care with whom or against whom they play, the team plays. And Mo Williams can have 50 points over Saras and 20 assists and Saras can have 3 turnovers and miss 5 shots, but the team somehow :confused: (I don't understand that too) manages to score more than opponents while one of their player does such garbage all the time. When he's on the floor other players somehow begin to play better and compensates his all **** done by him. Other players are so kind-hearted and make a good +/- for Saras. Strange? Paradox?).

Least effective:

Jamaal Tinsley - - 75
Al Harrington - - 52
Marquis Daniels - - 49
Rawle Marshall - - 21

The best players (players played the most time and who have the best +/-):

Jermaine O'Neal with +8 (34,5 min)
(Jeff Foster with +6, but he plays only 20,4 min)
Danny granger with -2 (31,3 min)
Stephen Jackson with -13 (30,9 min)

The worst players:

Jamaal Tinsley -75 (29,6 min)
Al Harrington -52 (31,2 min)
Marquis Daniels -49 (22,5 min)

I don't care if Al has 30 points or Tinsley has 2/1 A/To ratio, but it means the team plays bad when they are on the floor. Paradox?

And I don't say that Saras plays good, but man, look at the others too, and you will see they aren't that good as you may think.

Basketball is not about 1 player to score 50 points. If the team loses all these points are BS. And if there is a man on the floor, who scores 6 points and does 4 turnovers, but other players respond to him better and the team plays better (maybe he is emotional leader or just does small things who makes the team better and that compensates all his ****), that's not that bad. I don't say Saras is that player on Pacers, that's just an example.
Everybody sees only points and turnovers. Basketball is much more. That's why USA can't win any big tournament right now. USA players are much better one-on-one players than any other world teams players, but that doesn't help much. With a bit more clever basketball they could crash every team by 30 or more points with ease.

hoopsforlife
11-19-2006, 09:57 AM
I am having a hard time understanding all this animosity towards Saras. I watched the whole game last night and it seemed to me the starters were the ones who gave up the points early in the game. I noted when Saras came in we were down 15 points and when he went out the deficit was only nine. When Rick brought in Tinsley the deficit bloomed to 15 again.

I thought the offense seemed to flow much better with Saras in with DA. When these two play together the passing is much more frequent, better and results in dunks more often. When Tins is in its usually 1-2 passes and a shot.

I personally, thought Saras defense wasn't that bad. He messed up once or twice but so did the others. (Tinsley made an excellent inbounds bounce pass directly to a Bucks player. Reminded me of somebody else bouncing one off the backboard) ;) One of his traveling calls was under the basket and if not called would have resulted in a dunk assist. I thought it was a BS call.

I liked the starting line up we used last night except I would start Saras in Tinsleys place.

I am not a coach or an expert on basketball, but I have watched enough in my life to understand some things about the game. Saras is a decent player who is in the wrong situation for him. He would have been much better for this team if they had traded JO and kept Ron. Sarunas played enough minutes last night to positively affect the outcome of the game. He doesn't deserve the verbal beating some are giving him on here today.

I don't mean to bash JO here because I like the hustle he is showing this year so far. Blocks are great, scoring is good, rebounds, eh, JO is doing a good job this year.

Pitons
11-19-2006, 10:21 AM
I am having a hard time understanding all this animosity towards Saras. I watched the whole game last night and it seemed to me the starters were the ones who gave up the points early in the game. I noted when Saras came in we were down 15 points and when he went out the deficit was only nine. When Rick brought in Tinsley the deficit bloomed to 15 again.

I thought the offense seemed to flow much better with Saras in with DA. When these two play together the passing is much more frequent, better and results in dunks more often. When Tins is in its usually 1-2 passes and a shot.

I personally, thought Saras defense wasn't that bad. He messed up once or twice but so did the others. (Tinsley made an excellent inbounds bounce pass directly to a Bucks player. Reminded me of somebody else bouncing one off the backboard) ;) One of his traveling calls was under the basket and if not called would have resulted in a dunk assist. I thought it was a BS call.

I liked the starting line up we used last night except I would start Saras in Tinsleys place.

I am not a coach or an expert on basketball, but I have watched enough in my life to understand some things about the game. Saras is a decent player who is in the wrong situation for him. He would have been much better for this team if they had traded JO and kept Ron. Sarunas played enough minutes last night to positively affect the outcome of the game. He doesn't deserve the verbal beating some are giving him on here today.

I don't mean to bash JO here because I like the hustle he is showing this year so far. Blocks are great, scoring is good, rebounds, eh, JO is doing a good job this year.

Then you and Naptown_Seth watched the different games I suppose :laugh:. Naptown_Seth gave Saras F for his play. In his opinion he was twice as worse as the worst player in da world.

Alpolloloco
11-19-2006, 04:19 PM
I am having a hard time understanding all this animosity towards Saras. I watched the whole game last night and it seemed to me the starters were the ones who gave up the points early in the game. I noted when Saras came in we were down 15 points and when he went out the deficit was only nine. When Rick brought in Tinsley the deficit bloomed to 15 again.

I thought the offense seemed to flow much better with Saras in with DA. When these two play together the passing is much more frequent, better and results in dunks more often. When Tins is in its usually 1-2 passes and a shot.

I personally, thought Saras defense wasn't that bad. He messed up once or twice but so did the others. (Tinsley made an excellent inbounds bounce pass directly to a Bucks player. Reminded me of somebody else bouncing one off the backboard) ;) One of his traveling calls was under the basket and if not called would have resulted in a dunk assist. I thought it was a BS call.

I liked the starting line up we used last night except I would start Saras in Tinsleys place.

I am not a coach or an expert on basketball, but I have watched enough in my life to understand some things about the game. Saras is a decent player who is in the wrong situation for him. He would have been much better for this team if they had traded JO and kept Ron. Sarunas played enough minutes last night to positively affect the outcome of the game. He doesn't deserve the verbal beating some are giving him on here today.

I don't mean to bash JO here because I like the hustle he is showing this year so far. Blocks are great, scoring is good, rebounds, eh, JO is doing a good job this year.

Wow, I think I will vote this post as "post of the year".
I agree completely.

Unclebuck
11-19-2006, 04:52 PM
I thought Saras played fairly well in the Bucks game. And there is no question the ball moves better when DA and Saras are in the game together.

A few of you in this thread have suggested that Saras should be given a trial run as a point guard. The problem with that is he doesn't handle the ball well enough to be the only point guard on the floor. Sure if you team him with DA or Marquis and play Saras in a two point guard attack he can be successful on the offensive end.

Roferr
11-20-2006, 09:12 AM
I think Sarunas' overall play is better this year. He is not the defensive liability a lot of people make him out to be. He loses his man occasionally but that's routine for most of the Pacers. He is handling the ball much better and him not being able to bring the ball up is not substantiated, it's meerly parrotting from last season.

I don't think RC has given him the playing minutes to prove himself one way or the other. RC seems to have a very low tolerance level when it comes to Sarunas, one or two blunders and you're out of there. While other players, namely Tins and Jax, can make 2-3 errors in a row plus bang some ugly looking bricks and they remain in the game.

From what I've seen in the games this year, Sarunas needs more, consistent playing time. No wonder he throws up 3 shots in 2 mins and 36 seconds (his entire playing time for the game). He's getting his licks while he's got the chance, thus forcing some shots. His shot has just not been falling. He's getting wide open looks but he's not dropping them. That part of his game has to improve or I wouldn't play him either.

What we all don't know is how Sarunas plays in practice. Maybe, he's stinking it up and doesn't deserve to play and the coaching staff knows this and we aren't privy to it, or at least the vast majority of us.

However, based on game performances, Jax and Tins are allowed entirely more screw-ups with impunity.

I would like to see Sarunas get traded to a team that he will get a bonafide shot at playing. I certainly hope he gets a chance to prove himself in the NBA before he decides to return to Europe. He is very court-saavy and can see things develop before they actually do, ala Bird. If he ever got the chance to play with the same lineup and his teammates knew him and vice-versa, I think he would a dynamite assist man. He could make excellent, no-look passes routinely. He's not nearly as fast or the player Nash is but he could make good things happen for this teammates, for sure.

NPFII
11-20-2006, 09:46 AM
I've been saying it from day 1 - he should have went to Cleveland.

It's pretty obvious to me that Rick has lost it with most of the guys. Tinsley & Jax were probably the 1st to go, and after that Artest who actually demanded to be traded. Sarunas, Foster, Croshere, and even AJ ("coach-er needs to change") followed, and now it's finally reached JO.

RC may be a good coach, but he's lost this bunch. He needs to go.

Anthem
11-20-2006, 10:08 AM
I've been saying it from day 1 - he should have went to Cleveland.
The only guy guaranteed to play Saras less then Carlisle is Mike Brown. But at least he could have hung out with Big Z.

Naptown_Seth
11-20-2006, 06:00 PM
He is not the defensive liability a lot of people make him out to be. He loses his man occasionally but that's routine for most of the Pacers
In preseason and some of the first few games I would have agreed with you about the defense, but I've really started noticing how badly he's getting crossed over.

Heck, some guys just speed dribble right by him, barely even putting a move on him. Now even the best get crossed over, we just discussed Danny and MD having it happen to them too. But teams are directly attacking Sarunas now, and that tells me all I need to know.

When you come in and a team gameplans AWAY from Redd and gets Williams or Blake going instead, you've got problems.


And nowhere in my complaints about Sarunas have you been hearing that everything is fine with Tinsley. It's not. He's been hurting the team too, just not quite as much. And I've long defended JT, so it's not faves or pets.




I don't care if Al has 30 points or Tinsley has 2/1 A/To ratio, but it means the team plays bad when they are on the floor. Paradox?

And I don't say that Saras plays good, but man, look at the others too, and you will see they aren't that good as you may think.

Basketball is not about 1 player to score 50 points.
"I don't care about other stats, only this one tells the truth (as I want it to be)."

And I never, ever have or will say basketball is about 1 player scoring 50. It's about spacing, effective matchups, showing the opponent that you can attack them in multiple ways rather than just 1 go-to player or play, and about defending enough that others can help you while you help them.

When a team ISOs you and then your man goes by you off the first step, you are a liability. When teams know they can trap you and force you to pick up your dribble consistantly, you are a liablity. When teams can leave you on the outside because you can't hit a shot, you are a liability. And so on.

Right now Sarunas is not producing on ANY of these counts. Every player has some holes in their game, every player is part of the problem even in a victory.

But I want to hear how turning the ball over without creating scores or getting your own scores is helpful? I mean the +/- just got ripped apart when it said that Sarunas helped the Pacers win vs MIL MORE THAN JO DID. Double, double, took a charge, 8 blocks.

Yet somehow Sarunas was more important to the team. Paradox? No. Bad stat.


He messed up once or twice but so did the others
No. Not once or twice. More than anyone else on the team, even Tinsley (who is playing poorly too). I gave Tins a terirble grade as well. He would have had an "F" but he improved in the 3rd and actually helped out a little.

I'm not saying Tinsley is fine. I'm saying he IS NOT fine, at least so far this year. What I'm saying is Sarunas is worse, and that puts the team in a pretty crappy spot at PG.


No wonder he throws up 3 shots in 2 mins and 36 seconds (his entire playing time for the game). He's getting his licks while he's got the chance, thus forcing some shots.
Not true. Most of his 3pt shots have been as wide open and Tinsley's and Jack's have been. He hasn't had to take difficult jumpers, and most of the time the plays are CALLED FOR HIM. They put him in the PnR because he's the PG and they want to get him going. They put him in the best possible position to impact the game, no different than posting Harrison, putting Jack in the give n go or getting JO the elbow jumper.

And the dude got TWENTY MINUTES vs MIL.

ARMSTRONG - the answer to your "but if only SarJas played more" angle. And he is only turning the ball over 2.1 times per 48 (a stat you use all the time Roferr) compare to Sarunas 4.8, 2nd only to Greene in his 10 minutes of total play so far. Now I won't deny that Tinsley is 3rd at 4.7 per, but Tins is better per 48 at rebounds, steals, assists, blocks and fouls (less per minute).

Sarunas takes MORE SHOTS PER MINUTE than everyone on the team except Al and JO, and they are both shooting it at least 12% better (Al is 19% better in fact). He takes the MOST 3PA PER MINUTE on the team (his per48 is 8.9 to Armstrongs 8.8) but shoots it at a 33% rate (Armstrong has shot it at a 56% rate which is why it's okay for him to "force his shots in limited PT" - ie, less than Sarunas gets).

Be honest Roferr, if I told you Jack was 3rd in FGAs per minute with a 31% rate would you defend him? I know you wouldn't because this was the first issue you addressed when you joined the Star.


Look, if Cabbages isn't putting up bad numbers then WTF do bad numbers look like?

imawhat
11-20-2006, 06:28 PM
I would agree with the initial post, but like others have said, I don't think playing time is Saras' issue. I've wanted him to do well, but I just don't think it's going to happen now.

He runs PG more than SG now and his numbers are still bad. It's only 10 games into the season, and maybe he's in a slump. Only problem is that it's the same slump he ended last season with and had this preseason. Aside from one game, he hasn't gotten out of it.

imawhat
11-20-2006, 06:40 PM
The most effective players right now:

Darrell armstrong - +37
Sarunas Jasikevicius - +10
Jermaine O'neal - + 8
Jeff Foster - +6

Least effective:

Jamaal Tinsley - - 75
Al Harrington - - 52
Marquis Daniels - - 49
Rawle Marshall - - 21

The best players (players played the most time and who have the best +/-):

Jermaine O'Neal with +8 (34,5 min)
(Jeff Foster with +6, but he plays only 20,4 min)
Danny granger with -2 (31,3 min)
Stephen Jackson with -13 (30,9 min)

The worst players:

Jamaal Tinsley -75 (29,6 min)
Al Harrington -52 (31,2 min)
Marquis Daniels -49 (22,5 min)

I don't care if Al has 30 points or Tinsley has 2/1 A/To ratio, but it means the team plays bad when they are on the floor. Paradox?



Plus/minus is a useless stat to rate a player's effectiveness. Eddie Gill could've gone into 10 games last year, all after the game was decided in a blowout during mopup minutes after the other team had let up. We could gain 6 points back in each of those games while he's in there and then you could say he's the most effective player on the Pacers.



You can't make an individual stat based on team performance reliable. There are too many factors involved. Unless you think each player is solely responsible for the team's success, which is impossible, it doesn't work.

Roferr
11-20-2006, 07:25 PM
In preseason and some of the first few games I would have agreed with you about the defense, but I've really started noticing how badly he's getting crossed over.

Heck, some guys just speed dribble right by him, barely even putting a move on him. Now even the best get crossed over, we just discussed Danny and MD having it happen to them too. But teams are directly attacking Sarunas now, and that tells me all I need to know.

When you come in and a team gameplans AWAY from Redd and gets Williams or Blake going instead, you've got problems.


And nowhere in my complaints about Sarunas have you been hearing that everything is fine with Tinsley. It's not. He's been hurting the team too, just not quite as much. And I've long defended JT, so it's not faves or pets.



"I don't care about other stats, only this one tells the truth (as I want it to be)."

And I never, ever have or will say basketball is about 1 player scoring 50. It's about spacing, effective matchups, showing the opponent that you can attack them in multiple ways rather than just 1 go-to player or play, and about defending enough that others can help you while you help them.

When a team ISOs you and then your man goes by you off the first step, you are a liability. When teams know they can trap you and force you to pick up your dribble consistantly, you are a liablity. When teams can leave you on the outside because you can't hit a shot, you are a liability. And so on.

Right now Sarunas is not producing on ANY of these counts. Every player has some holes in their game, every player is part of the problem even in a victory.

But I want to hear how turning the ball over without creating scores or getting your own scores is helpful? I mean the +/- just got ripped apart when it said that Sarunas helped the Pacers win vs MIL MORE THAN JO DID. Double, double, took a charge, 8 blocks.

Yet somehow Sarunas was more important to the team. Paradox? No. Bad stat.


No. Not once or twice. More than anyone else on the team, even Tinsley (who is playing poorly too). I gave Tins a terirble grade as well. He would have had an "F" but he improved in the 3rd and actually helped out a little.

I'm not saying Tinsley is fine. I'm saying he IS NOT fine, at least so far this year. What I'm saying is Sarunas is worse, and that puts the team in a pretty crappy spot at PG.


Not true. Most of his 3pt shots have been as wide open and Tinsley's and Jack's have been. He hasn't had to take difficult jumpers, and most of the time the plays are CALLED FOR HIM. They put him in the PnR because he's the PG and they want to get him going. They put him in the best possible position to impact the game, no different than posting Harrison, putting Jack in the give n go or getting JO the elbow jumper.

And the dude got TWENTY MINUTES vs MIL.

ARMSTRONG - the answer to your "but if only SarJas played more" angle. And he is only turning the ball over 2.1 times per 48 (a stat you use all the time Roferr) compare to Sarunas 4.8, 2nd only to Greene in his 10 minutes of total play so far. Now I won't deny that Tinsley is 3rd at 4.7 per, but Tins is better per 48 at rebounds, steals, assists, blocks and fouls (less per minute).

Sarunas takes MORE SHOTS PER MINUTE than everyone on the team except Al and JO, and they are both shooting it at least 12% better (Al is 19% better in fact). He takes the MOST 3PA PER MINUTE on the team (his per48 is 8.9 to Armstrongs 8.8) but shoots it at a 33% rate (Armstrong has shot it at a 56% rate which is why it's okay for him to "force his shots in limited PT" - ie, less than Sarunas gets).

Be honest Roferr, if I told you Jack was 3rd in FGAs per minute with a 31% rate would you defend him? I know you wouldn't because this was the first issue you addressed when you joined the Star.


Look, if Cabbages isn't putting up bad numbers then WTF do bad numbers look like?


I've said that if Sarunas can't get his act together and shoot any better than he has, I wouldn't play him, either.

speakout4
11-20-2006, 08:00 PM
I've said that if Sarunas can't get his act together and shoot any better than he has, I wouldn't play him, either.

Sarunas needs to play his way back on the court either the few minutes allotted to him in game time or in practice. In the meantime given his performance he sits. I can't fathom why RC is giving him so much playing time given that he has never really earned it. Put in DA and greene for the 20 minutes that tinsley is on the bench. If DA were 3 years younger there would be no question that Sarunas sits.

rimock31
11-20-2006, 08:07 PM
Sarunas needs to play his way back on the court either the few minutes allotted to him in game time or in practice. In the meantime given his performance he sits. I can't fathom why RC is giving him so much playing time given that he has never really earned it. Put in DA and greene for the 20 minutes that tinsley is on the bench. If DA were 3 years younger there would be no question that Sarunas sits.


My point is that in order for Sarunas to play himself back on the court, its not a matter of minutes, but a matter of being judged on the same standard as everyone else on the team (ie: tinsley/jax ). If that happens, i'm confident the good plays would outweight the bad plays and he would carve himself a regular role in the rotation

ChicagoJ
11-20-2006, 09:44 PM
Sorry, but that's just not true.

There's plenty to be critical of SJax about. I'm tired of talking about all the weaknesses of his game.

And there are things to be critical of Tinsley about, but I generally like Tinsley's "Game" (except, of course, when he loses focus.)

But they're each 100x the player that Saras is. With those guy, we might all agree they need a "smaller" role than what they've been give.

With Sarunas, its fair to wonder if he has a role in the NBA at all. Not just on the Pacers, but anyway.

Is there any team where he'd be the primary backup at PG?

The only way you can justify even giving Sarunas another on-court opportunity is to hold him to a different, and much lower, standard than SJax (from one of his harshest critics, I even admit that he's a 1st option player on a lottery team and a role player on a contending team) and Tinsley, who is a legit NBA starting PG but needs to prove he can stay healthy.

Saras so far has proved that he isn't even worth the few minutes he's been given. He certainly hasn't earned more playing time.

If you want him on the court, you're asking for a different standard in the first place.

I wish we could all agree that he's just not worth talking about. But there always seem to be a new wave of "reinforcements" and we keep covering the same ground over and over and over.

NPFII
11-21-2006, 01:33 AM
I haven't been participating in these Sarunas yes/no threads, but I've been leeching on some of them.

My personal opinion is that the Pacers, and the NBA in general are missing out. Missing out on teamplay for individual play, missing out on fundamentals for flashiness, missing out on basketball for $$$, and several other aspects that are IMO better basketball aspects.

To me it seems like the NBA game can be so much better and so much more enjoyable if those aspects were implemented. The talent level is so high, but the style is so low that it really hurts the eyes at times...

Furthermore, I think that those of you protecting this current NBA style are failing to see the change brought by teams like Phoenix, SA, Detroit, and even Toronto. The GMs are starting to see it, and the coaches are starting to react. The fans haven't quite grasped it yet, and the players - well, they cant change easily, but wait a few years - and the new brand of unselfish teamplayers will rule the league. LeBron, Wade, Carmelo, and even the new Kobe - they're leading the way.

I'm not trying to protect Sarunas, but I definitely feel that the Pacers don't have even 1 guy (except maybe Granger and maybe Armstrong) who's bought into that concept. They say passing is addictive - well so is "black-holing". Once you have 1 guy looking for "his own", it rubs on the rest. When you have 4 of your 5 starters like that - you suddenly have "chemistry problems", and your team seems to be underachieving although it's not.

Last year I thought the Pacers could be better if they let Sarunas have the keys once JT got injured. Today I realize that it wouldn't have helped. JO will never be a better passer, and Jax will never read the defense better. Fred Jones will never make the extra pass (still doesnt in Toronto), and Tinsley will never be mentally tough. I think it's partially Carlisle's inability to teach, but mostly the player's deficiencies in aspects of the game that are far more crucial than 1on1 defense, IMO.


I've come to the conclusion that the knack on Sarunas' game is legit (and was known from day1), though so are the knacks on the rest of the team and the coaching staff. The Pacers need a new direction, and Sarunas could be a step in the right direction, if and when it happens. I agree that currently - he can't help this "team" much, and everyone will be better off if he's traded. I kinda hope it happens and Sarunas leads a team to a good season, and PD will finally be free of the burden of these long Sarunas threads. AMEN.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 07:32 AM
I haven't been participating in these Sarunas yes/no threads, but I've been leeching on some of them.

My personal opinion is that the Pacers, and the NBA in general are missing out. Missing out on teamplay for individual play, missing out on fundamentals for flashiness, missing out on basketball for $$$, and several other aspects that are IMO better basketball aspects.

To me it seems like the NBA game can be so much better and so much more enjoyable if those aspects were implemented. The talent level is so high, but the style is so low that it really hurts the eyes at times...

Furthermore, I think that those of you protecting this current NBA style are failing to see the change brought by teams like Phoenix, SA, Detroit, and even Toronto. The GMs are starting to see it, and the coaches are starting to react. The fans haven't quite grasped it yet, and the players - well, they cant change easily, but wait a few years - and the new brand of unselfish teamplayers will rule the league. LeBron, Wade, Carmelo, and even the new Kobe - they're leading the way.

I'm not trying to protect Sarunas, but I definitely feel that the Pacers don't have even 1 guy (except maybe Granger and maybe Armstrong) who's bought into that concept. They say passing is addictive - well so is "black-holing". Once you have 1 guy looking for "his own", it rubs on the rest. When you have 4 of your 5 starters like that - you suddenly have "chemistry problems", and your team seems to be underachieving although it's not.

Last year I thought the Pacers could be better if they let Sarunas have the keys once JT got injured. Today I realize that it wouldn't have helped. JO will never be a better passer, and Jax will never read the defense better. Fred Jones will never make the extra pass (still doesnt in Toronto), and Tinsley will never be mentally tough. I think it's partially Carlisle's inability to teach, but mostly the player's deficiencies in aspects of the game that are far more crucial than 1on1 defense, IMO.


I've come to the conclusion that the knack on Sarunas' game is legit (and was known from day1), though so are the knacks on the rest of the team and the coaching staff. The Pacers need a new direction, and Sarunas could be a step in the right direction, if and when it happens. I agree that currently - he can't help this "team" much, and everyone will be better off if he's traded. I kinda hope it happens and Sarunas leads a team to a good season, and PD will finally be free of the burden of these long Sarunas threads. AMEN.

Great post, NPFII. That's what I'm talking about. That's why Detroit, Spurs were contenders years in a row and even Jazz this season are playing good. Teamplay. It's much more than defense 1on1 and to score 40 points. You can win some games even against mentioned tough teams with all that, but not a championship. Saras wasn't a good defender even in Europe, he wasn't even a good shooter, and sometimes he has had an off night with 0/12 or something shooting. I saw 2 Pacers games this season. And I saw only 1on1 play and no teamball at all. Saras is worthless and always will be in such a play. I don't know if he could play better in other NBA team, but in such NBA style he doesn't fit. That's for sure.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 07:38 AM
Plus/minus is a useless stat to rate a player's effectiveness.


Yea, I needed to add player's effectiveness regarding the team +/- when he plays or something like that. Sorry.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 07:52 AM
"I don't care about other stats, only this one tells the truth (as I want it to be)."

No, I didn't mean that. I just wanted to point out, that the team at least don't lose usually when he's on the court.


But I want to hear how turning the ball over without creating scores or getting your own scores is helpful? I mean the +/- just got ripped apart when it said that Sarunas helped the Pacers win vs MIL MORE THAN JO DID. Double, double, took a charge, 8 blocks.

Exactly, I don't understand too, why the team has good +/- when Saras plays so bad. The team should go -10 every minute when he's on the floor doing all the garbage every 5 seconds. The other 4 players on the court are too kind-hearted playing better with Saras to make his +/- higher in those minutes. But also their +/- is rising too at the moment, but overall they don't have it very high. It's not s stat to say who's better, but with whom the team plays better. And if you think that if he would go instead of Tinsley, he would have -300, that's your right. Yes, maybe. But he plays as a 2-3 backup and while his individual stats are awful, but the team is in +. That means if Saras individual stats would be higher (his shooting would be better), the +/- maybe would be better and it would be even better for the team.

You see individual stats first, I see team play as a whole unit first.




Yet somehow Sarunas was more important to the team. Paradox? No. Bad stat.


I never said that. JO is the best player Pacers have right now. Second is Danny Granger, third - Stephen Jackson (because they play in a different units most time and come out with the best +/-. So, relatively, they are the 3 best right now). I said the team usually plays better when he's on the floor having his limited minutes. And, of course, that doesn't mean Saras would have +100 if he would play more time.

PacerMan
11-21-2006, 01:27 PM
so I think we can all agree that RC is a good coach, but not the right coach for this team?

No we can't all agree with that.

Anthem
11-21-2006, 01:48 PM
No we can't all agree with that.
I'm with you.

As this team is currently configured, I don't think there is a perfect coach. I have no problem staying with Rick for the time being.

Israfan
11-21-2006, 01:59 PM
No, I didn't mean that. I just wanted to point out, that the team at least don't lose usually when he's on the court.



Exactly, I don't understand too, why the team has good +/- when Saras plays so bad. The team should go -10 every minute when he's on the floor doing all the garbage every 5 seconds. The other 4 players on the court are too kind-hearted playing better with Saras to make his +/- higher in those minutes. But also their +/- is rising too at the moment, but overall they don't have it very high. It's not s stat to say who's better, but with whom the team plays better. And if you think that if he would go instead of Tinsley, he would have -300, that's your right. Yes, maybe. But he plays as a 2-3 backup and while his individual stats are awful, but the team is in +. That means if Saras individual stats would be higher (his shooting would be better), the +/- maybe would be better and it would be even better for the team.

You see individual stats first, I see team play as a whole unit first.





I never said that. JO is the best player Pacers have right now. Second is Danny Granger, third - Stephen Jackson (because they play in a different units most time and come out with the best +/-. So, relatively, they are the 3 best right now). I said the team usually plays better when he's on the floor having his limited minutes. And, of course, that doesn't mean Saras would have +100 if he would play more time.

You will never convince people on this board that +- is a meaningful stat.
I tried to do that last year, for all year long. Its just because they see the games. They see something particulary ugly - like Saras dribbling turnovers or bad defence and conclude that he doesn't help team to win and therefore the +- is a stupid stat.

But how, tell me how this happens the second year in a row? How a "5th worst player in the NBA" has among highest +- on the team? In addition if you combine that with his statistics in win/loss (http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26378&page=2 second post), you'll see that S helps this team a lot.

Anthem
11-21-2006, 02:05 PM
You will never convince people on this board that +- is a meaningful stat. I tried to do that last year, for all year long. Its just because they see the games.
:laugh: Oh, man, that's priceless.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 02:11 PM
You will never convince people on this board that +- is a meaningful stat.

Yes, I started to realize that. :laugh:

imawhat
11-21-2006, 02:52 PM
Yea, I needed to add player's effectiveness regarding the team +/- when he plays or something like that. Sorry.


It's a completely useless stat. A player's plus/minus determines how effective they are? In that case our starting lineup should be:

Darrell Armstrong
Sarunas Jasikevicius
Jermaine O'Neal
Jeff Foster
Maceo Baston

because they are our most effective players. And Al Harrington, Jamaal Tinsley, and Marquis Daniels should be on the inactive list, barring injuries, because they are our least effective.

imawhat
11-21-2006, 03:08 PM
It's not s stat to say who's better, but with whom the team plays better.


I don't know how else to say it, but it's plain useless. It shows no player value because the numbers mean something different for every situation.

For instance, Elton Brand's plus/minus with the Clippers two years ago was much, much lower than John Edwards. Two teams, two different meanings for the numbers, yet no one here could make a sound argument that John Edwards was more effective for the Pacers than Elton Brand was for the Clippers, either individually or if you focused on plus/minus as a team stat.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 03:20 PM
It's a completely useless stat. A player's plus/minus determines how effective they are? In that case our starting lineup should be:

Darrell Armstrong
Sarunas Jasikevicius
Jermaine O'Neal
Jeff Foster
Maceo Baston

because they are our most effective players. And Al Harrington, Jamaal Tinsley, and Marquis Daniels should be on the inactive list, barring injuries, because they are our least effective.

On the court should be our best players. Effective player is not always a best player and vice versa. I mention that everywhere. Effective player (or however you call it) is when a player is on the court and the team wins at that moment. That most effective player is DA for example. Best player is who plays much (like Al, Tins, JO and so on) who have best +/-. These players are JO, DG and Jax.

Because we don't know or don't want to try to give some players more time to prove if their +/- would be better playing more time, they aren't pretending to be best players. Best players play the most time. Effective players (when they play their limited or not limited minutes (I think from 10 minutes PT), the team wins at the moment) are players who have the highest +/-. Their help is limited, but useful regarding the whole teams play when they are in (not judging a very ugly turnover as it was the game turning point).

Jeeez...

Pitons
11-21-2006, 03:24 PM
I don't know how else to say it, but it's plain useless. It shows no player value because the numbers mean something different for every situation.

For instance, Elton Brand's plus/minus with the Clippers two years ago was much, much lower than John Edwards. Two teams, two different meanings for the numbers, yet no one here could make a sound argument that John Edwards was more effective for the Pacers than Elton Brand was for the Clippers, either individually or if you focused on plus/minus as a team stat.

Exactly. It's useless when you judge two different players from different teams. Btw, John Edwards played only 5,6 min or so.

Israfan
11-21-2006, 06:35 PM
:laugh: Oh, man, that's priceless.

Yeah. I'm just jealous.

But seriously, in order to judge something you have to go to stats. In this way you understand the process better. Actually sometimes if you are taking into consideration mostly visual observation it can distract you from reality. And numbers are the reality (just engineer's point of view on life).

This is especially right about flashy (Kenyon Martin dunks) and ugly (Saras crossing the court under pressure) looking plays. This kind of plays just sit in your head and from now on you think (with no grounds) that this particular player is a scrub.

Do you still think its wrong?

imawhat
11-21-2006, 06:37 PM
On the court should be our best players. Effective player is not always a best player and vice versa. I mention that everywhere. Effective player (or however you call it) is when a player is on the court and the team wins at that moment. That most effective player is DA for example. Best player is who plays much (like Al, Tins, JO and so on) who have best +/-. These players are JO, DG and Jax.

Because we don't know or don't want to try to give some players more time to prove if their +/- would be better playing more time, they aren't pretending to be best players. Best players play the most time. Effective players (when they play their limited or not limited minutes (I think from 10 minutes PT), the team wins at the moment) are players who have the highest +/-. Their help is limited, but useful regarding the whole teams play when they are in (not judging a very ugly turnover as it was the game turning point).

Jeeez...


I think I might be missing your reason for bringing it up. What is the point for bringing up Saras' +/-?

Kestas
11-21-2006, 07:00 PM
My opinion - Saras doesn't fit in RC schemes and maybe in Pacers team. He should have chosen other team to play for several years ago. If it lasts, he should be traded or whatever.

it was clear long time ago and it's evident now as well.
at least he's payed decently enough :/ otherwise we have to watch one of the best basketball players simply roting in there.. I practically have no hope left he'll be of any signifficant use to the current Pacers. they could easily have these 6 or 7 points from somebody else and for less money as well - just let Saras go and entertain people again. overall this team has been the most dissapointing one in the whole of the NBA (apart from the Hornets, of course ;)). sure, the second season has just begun, it's too early to judge it, but there's simply (almost) no light in this tunnel.. Saras looks like he has cought this pale-mediocritus virus that's flowing arround the Pacers..

imawhat
11-21-2006, 07:18 PM
A "best basketball player" wouldn't rot anywhere.

Kestas
11-21-2006, 07:25 PM
A "best basketball player" wouldn't rot anywhere.

"one of the.."
and I couldn't find a better word to describe this state of Saras.. he's not playing the game (I mean, he's not winning games, he's not leading the team to anything - he's just hanging out there without any clear purpose and without any clear future that he and lots of people hoped for), it has been a waste of time so far, imho. both for him and for the Pacers.

imawhat
11-21-2006, 07:35 PM
One of the best wouldn't be rotting anywhere unless they are a rookie or they're on a team with better talent ahead of them at their position.

What I'm saying is that Sarunas isn't making the most of minutes, regardless of how limited one thinks they might be. If he plays well, Rick leaves him in. If he doesn't, half the time Rick leaves him in and the other half he takes him out immediately.

With someone like Darrell Armstrong though, you know you're going to get good minutes out of him, whether it's 30 minutes or 5 minutes. So either way, he's not rotting. And I wouldn't consider him one of the best.


There isn't a player on our team that I don't want to play well. I want Sarunas to succeed, and it's frustrating that it isn't happening.

Naptown_Seth
11-22-2006, 01:25 AM
You see individual stats first, I see team play as a whole unit first.
As I've said several times, no I don't.

I went to the tape to make my point about +/- over at the Star. Here is my play by play of the start of the 2nd quarter of the AT MIL game (not the one tonight).

I think Sarunas is saved by a couple early good shooting nights and catching some breaks on runs that start or end based on the other 4 just as he comes in or leaves. The +5 for the MIL game is a complete joke and had a lot to do with them going in to JO in the low post in the 2nd half, Jack hitting some shots, and Daniels driving the ball effectively.

For example, to start the 2nd qtr with Sarunas in the game, the Pacers cut it from 12 to 8 on 3 scores by Jackson, and only 1 was assisted (by Armstrong).

1) SarJas and Powell, elbow PnR, kickout to Jack at the 3 when Armstong's man cuts it off. Jack then takes his man off the dribble as well as Armstrong's when he come to help to get the easy layup. All Jack going wing/baseline option drive (depends on which side defender concedes).

1 DEF) Sarunas is beat off dribble and Bell goes right to the rim (past Marshall trying to reach over). Powell comes to defend, pass goes to his man and Jack puts a body on him as he catches it and the guy drops it. Bell catches and kicks out. Why? Because SarJas is literally standing there looking at the play while Bell keeps on hustling for the loose ball.

Redd runs 3pt PnR with Powell's man and Jack, Jack goes over instead of under and Powell closes well to force Redd to shoot an off-balance 3 ball miss. Sarunas gets an uncontested rebound.

2) SarJas to DA, DA to Jack on the same spot as before (right wing). Powell comes to low post but Jack has a speed mismatch (PF) and waves him off; the Bucks know it too. Powell's man at this point (the center) should have been called for a lane violation, that's how bad he was trying to help and lingering in the lane.

Anyway, Jack puts down the dribble, brutally crosses the guy over and again walks in for the easy layup.

2 DEF) Bell (SarJas man) goes up court and switches sides on the way up, you lose him off camera and when the ball gets there Danny is scrambling to get there while SarJas is defending Danny's guy way in the other corner. Both of these players were right next to them when Jack scored, so it's not a case of spacing. Either Danny or SarJas screwed up because both should be able to get up court with them starting right next to them after a made bucket.

Ultimately it's Sarunas man (Bell) that drives in for the easy layup after the long outlet and I really can't see why they would have switched their matchup from the previous play. Can't say for sure, but circumstances don't look good. Bell misses the And One, Powell uncontested rebound.

3) Gives to DA and he pushes the fast dribble up court, pass to SarJas. SarJas and Powell 3pt arc PnR, nothing. Pass to Jack, rotate to DA right 3pt arc, Jack runs through. DA and Danny PnR, nothing. To SarJas, back to DA, into Danny posting. MIL center doubles and tips it away on the dribble.

4 seconds, baseline OOB play. DA long pass to Jack up top, he dribbles and puts up a shot just before the clock goes off and misses. DA rebounds. Dribbles to the top, passes to Jack outside the arc. Jack takes 2 dribbles inside the arc and then pops a jumper. 1 dribble from not even being an assist for DA (literally, not opinion).


The Pacers just went +4 in the +/- and it was almost entirely due to Jack, with some solid help from DA. Granger and Powell were decent. SarJas was almost non-involved on offense and a liability on at least one defensive play, yet he went from -3 to +1 on the night at that point.

PLUS MINUS IS A STAT. It's not somehow different than points, rebounds, asists. Just as you don't see the context of those stats from the cold numbers you don't see the context from the cold +/- numbers. So give us a break with the attempts to present +/- as this organic, in-tune, tangible experience with the game that is somehow different from other stats.

It's still someone adding and subtracting as things happen in a game. What I just listed in the quote, that's from the video, that's what really happened, it's not just cold stats. You can say I skewed it, but I defy anyone to watch that same sequence and not see it in similar terms.

My opinion is formed by what I see, what I see isn't formed by my opinion.

Naptown_Seth
11-22-2006, 01:39 AM
Anthem, I agree about the priceless thing. "Hey, I see the numbers, you only see the actual plays" is what might be described as a "weak" argument.


But seriously, in order to judge something you have to go to stats. In this way you understand the process better. Actually sometimes if you are taking into consideration mostly visual observation it can distract you from reality. And numbers are the reality (just engineer's point of view on life).
But seriously the STATS say that Sarunas turns the ball over MORE than any other player on the team per minute and that he's one of the worst in the NBA when it comes to turnovers.

See the stat and believe it. You no longer need to take my word for it.

Oh wait, stats that say Sarunas isn't doing good aren't real. I forgot. So seeing it confuses us, stats that say he's struggling are misleading...only things that say he's great are real.

Hey, I agree, evolution is BS and the Moon landing was faked. :rolleyes:


Since there are several people debating and not all of you are really making the same points (ie, Pitons I consider more serious about this debate), I will 100% agree that stats HELP give understanding to things we watched. You can think you saw 10 rebounds when really a guy only had 5. Of course a stat doesn't tell you that those 5 were all critical contested rebounds, which could be where you got the idea that there were more in your head.

So consider this, many of us both watch the game AND look at the stats. So we cover both sides of understanding the game and that gives us MORE understanding than someone that can only see the stats and perhaps 1 or 2 games a season.

Hopefully you, Pitons, will at least review that play by play I posted above to see one example of how a player can do well with the +/- but not really be a factor in helping. I think at the Star I went on to suggest that perhaps its the fact that him being in means that someone like DA, Jack, Daniels, etc get the chance to take over might be how he "helps".

BTW, tonight he apparently helped quite a bit in the 2nd, but I didn't get to see that portion so I can't comment on it.

Israfan
11-22-2006, 07:16 AM
Naptown.

Don't put your words in my mouth. I never claimed that those who can only watch stats will have better understanding of the game than those who actually saw both the game and the stats. Though this could be the case, it depends on the fan intelligence and basketball knowledge.

I said that people on this board don't believe +- stat because they watch games. This sentence has totally different meaning than what you turned it to be.

You need to be more intelligent with your Saras on the moon stories. :-o

Pitons
11-22-2006, 07:59 AM
I think I might be missing your reason for bringing it up. What is the point for bringing up Saras' +/-?

That means when Saras plays his 14,4 min with other players on the court, the team is in +. It depends from what point we see. I see first from team play point, individual stats second. If a team wins when a player is on the court, that's good. And in longer term, playing in different units, it's a useful stat.

Even we can see this from 1 game. For example in the last game Marquis had only 4 points, but a very good +/- ratio. He played half of the game, so it means half of the game he played with others teammates the team had +13. DG, Tins and JO had a very good game also.

But for players, who don't play much, we can't say he would have a good +/- if he would play 30 min, not 15. But if the team has + when they play their 15 min, that's good imo.

Pitons
11-22-2006, 08:11 AM
As I've said several times, no I don't.

I went to the tape to make my point about +/- over at the Star. Here is my play by play of the start of the 2nd quarter of the AT MIL game (not the one tonight).


PLUS MINUS IS A STAT. It's not somehow different than points, rebounds, asists. Just as you don't see the context of those stats from the cold numbers you don't see the context from the cold +/- numbers. So give us a break with the attempts to present +/- as this organic, in-tune, tangible experience with the game that is somehow different from other stats.

It's still someone adding and subtracting as things happen in a game. What I just listed in the quote, that's from the video, that's what really happened, it's not just cold stats. You can say I skewed it, but I defy anyone to watch that same sequence and not see it in similar terms.

My opinion is formed by what I see, what I see isn't formed by my opinion.

So Saras is very lucky then. When he comes out, others start playing twice better as before and Saras only does turnover after turnover and the team starts to play 4 against 5, but the team competes despite a superior bad Saras play.

I didn't say that +/- is the only correct stat, but as I see from the board, most of the posters think that it's absolutely useless. And I don't agree.

Pitons
11-22-2006, 08:22 AM
As I've said several times, no I don't.

I went to the tape to make my point about +/- over at the Star. Here is my play by play of the start of the 2nd quarter of the AT MIL game (not the one tonight).


PLUS MINUS IS A STAT. It's not somehow different than points, rebounds, asists. Just as you don't see the context of those stats from the cold numbers you don't see the context from the cold +/- numbers. So give us a break with the attempts to present +/- as this organic, in-tune, tangible experience with the game that is somehow different from other stats.

It's still someone adding and subtracting as things happen in a game. What I just listed in the quote, that's from the video, that's what really happened, it's not just cold stats. You can say I skewed it, but I defy anyone to watch that same sequence and not see it in similar terms.

My opinion is formed by what I see, what I see isn't formed by my opinion.

So, you want to say, that if there weren't Saras playing at the moment, team would perform better and would smash their opponents not with +5 with Saras on the court, but with +15 let's say, if there weren't Saras playing? But how it comes, that when they play without Saras, their +/- isn't so good?

Team should play three times better without Saras, with whom the team plays 4 against 5, but somehow it doesn't happen yet.

Pitons
11-22-2006, 08:30 AM
BTW, tonight he apparently helped quite a bit in the 2nd, but I didn't get to see that portion so I can't comment on it.

Yes, his stats was not so bad, but he had 0 in +/-. So it means the team didn't perform superb, when he was in, the team tied with the opponents.

As I said, stats don't show, that Marquis played good, only 3/10 shooting, only 1 rebound, but the team had the highest +/- in almost half of the game he played. And it's very good imo.

Pitons
11-22-2006, 08:37 AM
And very important thing. DG shooting was only 4/14 (2/9 three throws), only 4 reb, 1 assist and 4 turnovers, but he played almost 38 minutes (that's almost all game) and the team had +10 when he was on the court last game. If we look at stats, they are awful, but I think he played good and helped the team, when I look at +/-. Of course, you could think, that if DG would be out, the team would have had + 30, but in longer period DG is second most important player in squad with his +/-, because it denies fact, that the team would be better without him. If it wasn't, other players would have the higher +/- than DG in a longer term (because they should play better without DG on the floor).

Kestas
11-22-2006, 10:10 AM
What I'm saying is that Sarunas isn't making the most of minutes, regardless of how limited one thinks they might be. If he plays well, Rick leaves him in. If he doesn't, half the time Rick leaves him in and the other half he takes him out immediately.

And I wouldn't consider him one of the best.


you can consider whatever you like, but fact is he's one of the best FIBA players in the world right now. even after he missed two FIBA tournaments in a row. besides, he's clearly the most recognised European PG of this century and one of the most successfull European club basketball players of all times, so that adds to his status enormously. his achievements in the Pacers is a different matter, though. wrong environment.. but it could be worse (see Macijauskas last year), so heck knows.. on one hand you can view this a prove of NBA's superiority, on the other - as a prove that NBA is a completely different basketball alltogether. not worse, but not any better.. your post proves it, btw. I believe in team oriented basketball, while you think that a player should perform on the same level no matter what. I'd say this would work for Athletics or something, but basketball has a system in place and to succeed in it you have to be good at this particullar system. Saras is clearly too bad for the system Pacers (and majority of NBA teams) are using. similarly Armstrong or Tinsley would probably be too bad for the Euroleague winning squad.

Flax
11-22-2006, 10:52 AM
Kestas, your point would be legitimate only if US born NBA player of above average quality lost his mind and all of a sudden went to Europe. Now you can only speculate how isolation-type, but highly superior individually NBA player would fair in Euro style team-first game. I suspect they'd ajust and go thorugh. Look at those who failed to enter NBA and are now carying Euro teams all the way up. There are too make to make a short list.

There was only one such "no fit for euro game" accident, when Dominique Wilkins was a huge disaster for Panathinaicos when he left NBA. But he was already out of NBA, long time past his prime.

Fool
11-22-2006, 01:08 PM
Yes, assuming that Sarunas' failure in the NBA shows that NBA players wouldn't work in a Euro league is falacious and shows bias.

imawhat
11-22-2006, 02:24 PM
you can consider whatever you like, but fact is he's one of the best FIBA players in the world right now. even after he missed two FIBA tournaments in a row. besides, he's clearly the most recognised European PG of this century and one of the most successfull European club basketball players of all times, so that adds to his status enormously. his achievements in the Pacers is a different matter, though. wrong environment.. but it could be worse (see Macijauskas last year), so heck knows.. on one hand you can view this a prove of NBA's superiority, on the other - as a prove that NBA is a completely different basketball alltogether. not worse, but not any better.. your post proves it, btw.


It is an entirely different style of play. Honestly, I believe the European style is much better than the current American style, especially offensively. But style has nothing to do with talent. Otherwise, NBA teams at the beginning of preseason would've never beaten a Euro team, let alone blown them out half the time (though European teams did win a couple of games).




I believe in team oriented basketball, while you think that a player should perform on the same level no matter what. I'd say this would work for Athletics or something, but basketball has a system in place and to succeed in it you have to be good at this particullar system. Saras is clearly too bad for the system Pacers (and majority of NBA teams) are using. similarly Armstrong or Tinsley would probably be too bad for the Euroleague winning squad.


I really think the issue is athleticism and has nothing to do with a system. You and I both know that Sarunas has a great understanding of basketball and can learn any system. So can John Wooden, a 90+ year old Hall of Fame basketball coach. But neither can currently dribble a ball up court against a NBA-level defense without having problems.


And as a comparison, you would never see one of the best NBA players struggle in Europe because of the system. Shaq, Wade, LeBron, Duncan, etc., etc....they wouldn't "rot" in Europe, in my opinion. I'm not trying to put down European basketball. Just stating the obvious.

Kestas
11-22-2006, 02:30 PM
Kestas, your point would be legitimate only if US born NBA player of above average quality lost his mind and all of a sudden went to Europe. Now you can only speculate how isolation-type, but highly superior individually NBA player would fair in Euro style team-first game. I suspect they'd ajust and go thorugh. Look at those who failed to enter NBA and are now carying Euro teams all the way up.

actually, this only proves the point, imho. as one may see it, these NBA outcasts were suited better for the European style in the first place. as I said - two different games. if the player is good at both - hes' a genius. majority of modern stars are extremely good at one style, but only average at the other, imho. and as NBA was and still is way superior to everything else in terms of fame and money, random player movement is impossible and should not be looked at for any proves..
therefore I don't need NBA stars at their prime in Europe to prove my point (btw, last year an old man Kenny Anderson was a total disaster for my team Zalgiris, but who cares). on one hand I have international FIBA competitions to prove it, on the other - thoughts by basketball observers who know much more than I ever will.. but I would not fight for these views - got enough of that last season on this board ;)

Kestas
11-22-2006, 02:53 PM
It is an entirely different style of play. Honestly, I believe the European style is much better than the current American style, especially offensively. But style has nothing to do with talent. Otherwise, NBA teams at the beginning of preseason would've never beaten a Euro team, let alone blown them out half the time (though European teams did win a couple of games).

I really think the issue is athleticism and has nothing to do with a system. You and I both know that Sarunas has a great understanding of basketball and can learn any system. So can John Wooden, a 90+ year old Hall of Fame basketball coach. But neither can currently dribble a ball up court against a NBA-level defense without having problems.

And as a comparison, you would never see one of the best NBA players struggle in Europe because of the system. Shaq, Wade, LeBron, Duncan, etc., etc....they wouldn't "rot" in Europe, in my opinion. I'm not trying to put down European basketball. Just stating the obvious.

I think that every ten year old boy out of the local basketball school would easily learn the system Pacers use in no time. however, Saras is not very effective in it, you and I can see it clearly. some of his skills are simply not required for the Pacers in the system they use.

and I must remind you Euroleague teams won two games out of 6 against NBA squads (I think, too lazy to check) during the NBA Europe Live! and that's still just the begining.. CSKA played at home and blew the Sixers like some kids. bring any NBA team to Moscow, Athens, Barcelona, Pireus, etc. at the end of the season and lets fight it out ;)

regarding dribbling.. well, that's what I'm talking about. the system you use can't even help their guy out with such a simple problem. European deffenses are extremely complicated (much more so than in NBA, though personal deffense on average is, obviously, worse - that's the thing of the American school), but Barcelona and Maccabi somehow managed to cover this weakness of Saras with great results. Pacers are clearly unwilling to do that - that's simply out of their style completely and no one can blame them. that's how I see it..

regarding the NBA stars not roting in Europe. obviously. the personal tallent is enormous. the team with the players you mentioned would instantly switch to the American style and that's it. but I believe we're approching the time when not all European teams will want Wade or Kobe on board for any money (hypothetically speaking), because they do not fit the style. I strongly believe in that.
however, you must keep in mind that in Europe there are squads in some top competitions with a budget the size of the current yearly contract of Saras. last weak Lithuanian team Siauliai lost by a point (or was it two) to a Spanish team playing away - that Spanish team had the budget 20 times the size of Siauliai budget and that number is still hardly anywhere close to the money Bron is getting per year. but wait for ten more years.. ;)

Black Sox
11-22-2006, 02:53 PM
However a person wants to look at it, coaches do use +/- stats.