PDA

View Full Version : Post Trade Thoughts



Dr. Goldfoot
01-25-2007, 01:00 PM
I know I'm not breaking any new ground here and that I could've just broken this post down and put each part into an existing thread. I'm rebellious like that. I'm going to attempt to break down the Pacers position by position.

Point Guard:
Can we just drop the absolute negativity surrounding Jamaal Tinsley for a few minutes? Jamaal's been solid. Before you skip the rest of my post and start with your rebuttals, hear me out. I saw a defensive effort against the Heat I've never seen before from Tinsley. He was picking Williams up at the half court line and keeping him from initiating the offense at will. He got beat on some pick and rolls and J-Will flat out ran by him in the open court at least once. What he didn't do was force a bunch of shots, go all Rucker league, or lose his mind and just start pushing people when he got burnt. He had 5 turnovers vs the Heat (one went thru Murphy's hands and one was when he just threw the ball out on the court to let the time expire) and only one against the Knicks. In the same time span he has 12 assists and 5 steals. That's not gonna get you on the all-star team but it's solid. He's also averaging 14.5 points. I am concerned with the overall position though. I like Armstrong. I also know he's 38 years old and his game relies entirely on the one thing 38 year old atheletes cannot provide night in and night out...energy. I want to see DA playing like he did against the Knicks in the playoffs not in a wheelchair. I think if we keep riding this guy like we have post trade that's where he'll end up. He's playing 26 minutes a night because we have no formidable backup points. Orien Greene and Keith McLeod aren't nincompoops like Eddie Gill but I wouldn't be upset if they never saw the court. We don't need a guy who wants 20 minutes a night but we need someone who can be relied upon to keep the train rolling. Maybe that guy is McLeod I don't know.

Swingmen:
I've decided to just combine all of our 2's and 3's. This isn't a team with a Reggie Miller or Ray Allen. We have 5 players who play both positions. They may be better at one but all will see time at both. Danny Granger is coming into his own offensively and he did a nice job defensively on Wade, but we need more than 3.5 rebounds a game from him and that's what he's given us since returning to the starting lineup. Daniels and Dunleavy are similar in the sense that they don't have to score to be effective, but on any given night one of them needs to be able to put the ball in the basket. Mike JR.'s shooting has been awful, not his selection per se but he's just not making shots. Daniels shot has started to fall, but over the course of the season he's been on and off. I'm hoping his regulated role will see an end to his inconsistency. Williams got 25 in that first game before the new guys arrived but his minutes have all but vanished. That's alright with me. He's getting 5-10 a game and that will allow him to settle in without the pressure of having to produce. Marshall is the odd man out for now.

The Big Fellas:
JO needs the ball in the post. This is slowing us down. It's also a double edged sword because we need JO to produce and we need him to produce in the post. It's like we're running two teams over the course of a game. We all just need to realize that sometimes we are gonna open up the floor and sometimes we're gonna slow it down and pound it down the other teams throats. I like being able to do both. Jeff Foster is a nice guy. That plays into the hands of Carlisle right now. He can move Jeff to the bench and he'll still give you everything he's got. Foster's seeing 15-20 and I'm fine with that. He may not be a traditional offensive force but he has his moments away from the ball and obviously on the boards. His defense and rebounding will be needed as we go down the stretch. Troy Murphy has that outside shot we've been missing since Brad left us for the coast. While he's not exactly on par with Miller during that part of his career, he's certainly closer than Pollard or Foster ever will be. Ike Diogu is a future piece. If he can work his way in now, like Williams is doing, he'll be fine. I will say I expect him to actually work his way into some minutes by the end of the regular season. He isn't going to make the transition as easily as Murphy and Dunleavy have, but his past numbers indicate he can contribute in the reserve role once occupied by Baston. Maceo is the odd man out for now.

That just leaves David Harrison. I don't care. I gave up on him awhile back. Maybe we can add some variation of Harrison, Baston, Greene, McLeod & Marshall into a solid vet backup point guard. I think things are looking bright as long as Carlisle knows when to play the guys that are producing and sit the guys that aren't without making it a big hullabaloo, we'll be just fine.

JB's Breakout Year
01-25-2007, 03:16 PM
I don't think it's necessarily bad to slow things down by feeding JO-he's our most reliable scorer, and even last night, the shots he was taking are ones he usually makes.

I've been impressed by how willing he is to share the ball and to give us more D AND more boards. He also seems to be more vocal on the court towards his teammates. Wish he'd stop with the "If this team isn't getting better, I'm outta here" message, but the way he's played this season gives us a chance to be a really good team.

Jon Theodore
01-25-2007, 04:02 PM
When i first heard the trade my initial reaction was
....is this a joke? I mean Jackson and Harrington are extremely talented players and I absolutely loved Sarunas and wanted him to succeed here. I still feel like the right coach could help him produce in this league.

Anyhow, after a few games I am excited. The fact that we no longer are a poor rebounding team makes me ecstatic. Getting rebounds = winning games. It is equally as important as any other factor. I am excited about Murphy and O'neal, murphy copliments Jermaines game well. I think the only other big guy in the league, that we could of realistically got would be Nenad Krstic.

Getting rid of Jackson and Harringtons collective attitudes was a great thing. Harrington didn't change since last time he was here, he is a me me me player and we all KNOW that by now. I just think a huge burden has been lifted off of indy. I really think last nights game proves it, who would of thought we would win overtime against Dwayne Wade and the heat. With Jackson and Al we definitely would of lost.

I really wish Larry Bird would just step up and coach this team, Carlisle is horrible. Luckily the group of guys we have now, are pretty coachable players but I still don't like Carlisle. Tinsley struggles working in carlisles system and I think that's a big reason everyone has issues with him.

I really wish we could trade SOMEBODY for a draft pick next year. I'd trade Maceo, Rawle, Harrison, Greene any one of those guys or even two for a draft pick. At this point we could easily trade Foster to a bad team for a solid draft pick. We do not need him anymore and I love foster but it's the truth We really just need another young guy coming in to progress with our future core of Granger, Williams, Diogu, Dunleavy, Daniels.

I still think the Pacers need another big move involving any the guys that do not play right now, foster, tins, and williams. Williams is redundant with Granger/Dun/Quis/Rawle.

Am I crazy or should a foster, tins, williams combo be enough to net us a point guard who is better than Tinsley and a GOOD draft pick.

FrenchConnection
01-25-2007, 04:13 PM
When i first heard the trade my initial reaction was
....is this a joke? I mean Jackson and Harrington are extremely talented players and I absolutely loved Sarunas and wanted him to succeed here. I still feel like the right coach could help him produce in this league.

Anyhow, after a few games I am excited. The fact that we no longer are a poor rebounding team makes me ecstatic. Getting rebounds = winning games. It is equally as important as any other factor. I am excited about Murphy and O'neal, murphy copliments Jermaines game well. I think the only other big guy in the league, that we could of realistically got would be Nenad Krstic.

Getting rid of Jackson and Harringtons collective attitudes was a great thing. Harrington didn't change since last time he was here, he is a me me me player and we all KNOW that by now. I just think a huge burden has been lifted off of indy. I really think last nights game proves it, who would of thought we would win overtime against Dwayne Wade and the heat. With Jackson and Al we definitely would of lost.

I really wish Larry Bird would just step up and coach this team, Carlisle is horrible. Luckily the group of guys we have now, are pretty coachable players but I still don't like Carlisle. Tinsley struggles working in carlisles system and I think that's a big reason everyone has issues with him.

I really wish we could trade SOMEBODY for a draft pick next year. I'd trade Maceo, Rawle, Harrison, Greene any one of those guys or even two for a draft pick. At this point we could easily trade Foster to a bad team for a solid draft pick. We do not need him anymore and I love foster but it's the truth We really just need another young guy coming in to progress with our future core of Granger, Williams, Diogu, Dunleavy, Daniels.

I still think the Pacers need another big move involving any the guys that do not play right now, foster, tins, and williams. Williams is redundant with Granger/Dun/Quis/Rawle.

Am I crazy or should a foster, tins, williams combo be enough to net us a point guard who is better than Tinsley and a GOOD draft pick.

It is really hard to get 2007 draft picks right now. That trio might get you the PG but not the pick. Also, why would any team that is projected to have a good pick want Foster or Tins?

Dr. Goldfoot
01-25-2007, 04:29 PM
I don't think it's necessarily bad to slow things down by feeding JO-he's our most reliable scorer, and even last night, the shots he was taking are ones he usually makes.



Either do I. It looks like we can run a little smoother with the new guys/different lineups and still be effective with the tradintional Carlisle slogball. I was just pointing out how we are going to be doing both possibly, not just one or the other. The offense isn't necessarily flowing better with certain players on the floor, it's just being run differently. I thought the Heat game was a good example of both, with the exception of JO missing a few he'd normally make with ease. We have some perimeter players that are more capable of creating something out of nothing, which is what happens when we can't get JO the ball where he needs it. There should be a little less Jamaal having to drive the lane and hope something happens now that Daniels, Dunleavy and Granger will be seeing more time and Murphy can make jump shots which isn't exactly Foster's forte.

v_d_g
01-25-2007, 05:08 PM
Interesting, NOW everyone is starting to realize the importance of having a 2007 #1.

Where was this sentiment when the FORUM, en masse, was basically LAUDING TPTB for securing that trade exemption that got us AL for the #1?

I've posted repeatedly about this AND finally it's sinking in, apparently.

Biggest BLUNDER of the YEAR: Artest and a #1 for BIG AL:laugh::laugh:

Bird and Walsh messed up BIGTIME here and whatever they do they can't make up for what was the team's ONLY chance to get better WITHOUT taking on exhorbitant salaries.

All they had to do was accept losing Artest for nothing,
play the team they had (LESS AL but giving the young players plenty of run) and cash in on that early to mid teens pick in a very rich draft.

Bet that there will be any number of players available at that slot that POTENTIALLY are much better than Dunleavy, Murphy, and YES, AL.

On the other hand, let's enjoy mediocrity and SALARY CAP hell.

Is this the part of the year when BIRD goes off on YET ANOTHER European scouting trip ---he's renowned for finding gems over there?

Hicks
01-25-2007, 05:12 PM
Interesting, NOW everyone is starting to realize the importance of having a 2007 #1.

Where was this sentiment when the FORUM, en masse, was basically LAUDING TPTB for securing that trade exemption that got us AL for the #1?

I've posted repeatedly about this AND finally it's sinking in, apparently.

Biggest BLUNDER of the YEAR: Artest and a #1 for BIG AL:laugh::laugh:

Bird and Walsh messed up BIGTIME here and whatever they do they can't make up for what was the team's ONLY chance to get better WITHOUT taking on exhorbitant salaries.

All they had to do was accept losing Artest for nothing,
play the team they had (LESS AL but giving the young players plenty of run) and cash in on that early to mid teens pick in a very rich draft.

Bet that there will be any number of players available at that slot that POTENTIALLY are much better than Dunleavy, Murphy, and YES, AL.

On the other hand, let's enjoy mediocrity and SALARY CAP hell.

Is this the part of the year when BIRD goes off on YET ANOTHER European scouting trip ---he's renowned for finding gems over there?

It's like asking Destined4Greatness about Jermaine O'Neal.

Look, we get it.

Secondly, I was for the trade not only because I liked Al, but because I saw the more important part: He's a bargaining chip. And we already used him wisely to make the GS trade happen. Without him, it doesn't. That's why you make that trade during the summer.

maragin
01-25-2007, 05:14 PM
Interesting, NOW everyone is starting to realize the importance of having a 2007 #1.

Where was this sentiment when the FORUM, en masse, was basically LAUDING TPTB for securing that trade exemption that got us AL for the #1?

I've posted repeatedly about this AND finally it's sinking in, apparently.

Biggest BLUNDER of the YEAR: Artest and a #1 for BIG AL:laugh::laugh:

Bird and Walsh messed up BIGTIME here and whatever they do they can't make up for what was the team's ONLY chance to get better WITHOUT taking on exhorbitant salaries.

All they had to do was accept losing Artest for nothing,
play the team they had (LESS AL but giving the young players plenty of run) and cash in on that early to mid teens pick in a very rich draft.

Bet that there will be any number of players available at that slot that POTENTIALLY are much better than Dunleavy, Murphy, and YES, AL.

On the other hand, let's enjoy mediocrity and SALARY CAP hell.

Is this the part of the year when BIRD goes off on YET ANOTHER European scouting trip ---he's renowned for finding gems over there?

I'd wondered if you were okay, since I hadn't seen a post from you blasting that trade in like, 24 hours. Glad you are back with us.

Unclebuck
01-25-2007, 05:45 PM
I really don't care much about us not having a number 1. History shows us that if there is a player the Pacers really want that falls below 15 or so we'll make a trade to get that guy.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-25-2007, 06:07 PM
History also shows us this.....

Erick Dampier
Austin Croshere
Al Harrington
Jeff Foster(via Vonteego Cummings & a 1st rounder that would later=Murphy)
Primoz Brezec
A trade that secured Jamaal Tinsley ( our pick later turned into Boris Diaw)
Fred Jones
James Jones
David Harrison
Danny Granger
Shawne Williams

Largely role players not guys who put you in the finals.

PaceBalls
01-25-2007, 06:21 PM
History also shows us this.....

Erick Dampier
Austin Croshere
Al Harrington
Jeff Foster(via Vonteego Cummings & a 1st rounder that would later=Murphy)
Primoz Brezec
A trade that secured Jamaal Tinsley ( our pick later turned into Boris Diaw)
Fred Jones
James Jones
David Harrison
Danny Granger
Shawne Williams

Largely role players not guys who put you in the finals.

But they are great picks for not being lottery picks... These are all players who have succeeded in the NBA except for maybe David. You can't expect to get players who will get you into the finals with the 17th pick (except maybe Danny!) Same thing with next years draft. The first 3 or 4 players drafted will be incredible players. The rest... not so incredible, but if teams do their research they can end up with a Solid Role player.

wintermute
01-25-2007, 07:08 PM
Bet that there will be any number of players available at that slot that POTENTIALLY are much better than Dunleavy, Murphy, and YES, AL.


you're forgetting we got diogu also. i consider him as the replacement for the #1 we gave up for harrington

mildlysane
01-25-2007, 07:18 PM
you're forgetting we got diogu also. i consider him as the replacement for the #1 we gave up for harrington

:champions

docpaul
01-25-2007, 07:22 PM
Interesting, NOW everyone is starting to realize the importance of having a 2007 #1.

Where was this sentiment when the FORUM, en masse, was basically LAUDING TPTB for securing that trade exemption that got us AL for the #1?

I've posted repeatedly about this AND finally it's sinking in, apparently.

Biggest BLUNDER of the YEAR: Artest and a #1 for BIG AL:laugh::laugh:

Bird and Walsh messed up BIGTIME here and whatever they do they can't make up for what was the team's ONLY chance to get better WITHOUT taking on exhorbitant salaries.

All they had to do was accept losing Artest for nothing,
play the team they had (LESS AL but giving the young players plenty of run) and cash in on that early to mid teens pick in a very rich draft.

Bet that there will be any number of players available at that slot that POTENTIALLY are much better than Dunleavy, Murphy, and YES, AL.

On the other hand, let's enjoy mediocrity and SALARY CAP hell.

Is this the part of the year when BIRD goes off on YET ANOTHER European scouting trip ---he's renowned for finding gems over there?

I think you ascribe way too much value to a draft pick. Look, we're never going to get a high lottery pick unless we intentionally lead the team in that direction. Too much talent, too skilled of a coach.

Lower 1st round draft picks are a crap shoot, now matter how deep the draft. Look at them historically, and honestly tell me that we could be assured of getting a quality PG with a 2007 draft pick.

We have 1, 2, 3 very young up and coming rookies now. I believe management wisely parlayed draft picks into clear answers to deficits on the team. No one here knows the reasons for signing Al. For all we know, the decision could have been made as Hicks said, with the expressed purpose of having a valuable trading chip. That's not so out of the question, given that we already have a franchise PF (shrug).

It's easy to game your argument by saying that we traded Ron Artest + a 1st round draft pick for Al Harrington. I could game it the other way by saying that we traded a ticking time bomb, a strong player that would never find success in Indy due to lack of community support, Sarunas and a 1st round draft pick for Ike Diogu, a Foster that can shoot and a solid point forward that fits well into the Indy system. Harrington is why we were able to get Ike Diogu, plain and simple.

Now, the trade up + draft picks to get White. Well, that's another story. :)

<shrug></shrug>

Anthem
01-25-2007, 07:32 PM
We're giving up like the 20th pick in the draft. That ain't gonna get you Danny Granger.

BlueNGold
01-25-2007, 07:42 PM
you're forgetting we got diogu also. i consider him as the replacement for the #1 we gave up for harrington

The big deal is that Diogu is a safer bet than anyone we could pick at #15. He was a lottery pick at #9 and is considered to have significant upside. The fact he came with two very good fits for our system is just gravy. Considering Al is completely redundant with JO on the team...and we purged cancer by moving Jack, this trade should go down as a good one. If Ike develops into an all-star, which is a distinct possibliy, it could be viewed as a steal. We need to keep in mind that Jack and Al were getting in the way of Granger's development as well. They jacked up so many shots and lacked consistency, it hurt the team. The trade's all good in my book.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-25-2007, 07:45 PM
I was trying to say what Anthem & DocPaul said. They just said it better. The pick the Pacers will end up with will likely be the same pick they've ended up with the last 10 years. Somewhere in the mid-teens or lower thus getting something like they've picked the last ten years, largely role players.

imawhat
01-25-2007, 08:01 PM
Point Guard:
Can we just drop the absolute negativity surrounding Jamaal Tinsley for a few minutes? Jamaal's been solid. Before you skip the rest of my post and start with your rebuttals, hear me out. I saw a defensive effort against the Heat I've never seen before from Tinsley. He was picking Williams up at the half court line and keeping him from initiating the offense at will. He got beat on some pick and rolls and J-Will flat out ran by him in the open court at least once. What he didn't do was force a bunch of shots, go all Rucker league, or lose his mind and just start pushing people when he got burnt. He had 5 turnovers vs the Heat (one went thru Murphy's hands and one was when he just threw the ball out on the court to let the time expire) and only one against the Knicks. In the same time span he has 12 assists and 5 steals. That's not gonna get you on the all-star team but it's solid. He's also averaging 14.5 points. I am concerned with the overall position though. I like Armstrong. I also know he's 38 years old and his game relies entirely on the one thing 38 year old atheletes cannot provide night in and night out...energy. I want to see DA playing like he did against the Knicks in the playoffs not in a wheelchair. I think if we keep riding this guy like we have post trade that's where he'll end up. He's playing 26 minutes a night because we have no formidable backup points. Orien Greene and Keith McLeod aren't nincompoops like Eddie Gill but I wouldn't be upset if they never saw the court. We don't need a guy who wants 20 minutes a night but we need someone who can be relied upon to keep the train rolling. Maybe that guy is McLeod I don't know.




I'm not getting the same impression from Tinsley. I think it's very visible right now that the team plays much better without him in the lineup. I think he's a huge part of the energy problem to start games. It's especially noticeable because his replacement is DA. And I still think he's making poor decisions. The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

I've always had great things to say about Tinsley, but my faith in him is wearing very thin right now, between the forced shots, ball penetration, etc. I'd feel better if we ran MDJ and MD at the point, at least to see how it goes.

JB's Breakout Year
01-25-2007, 08:29 PM
The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

But we didn't get the deficit because of Tinsley, really. He was setting up his teammates well, nobody outside of Murphy was hitting their shots. And JT was doing his part to give us some offense when he could see most everybody else struggling.

I am concerned about the energy and attitude he brings, even when he plays efficiently. It's a good point that compared to DA, he looks even more indifferent. I like JO's leadership this year, but how much better would we be if our best point guard took more command of the team?

arenn
01-25-2007, 10:07 PM
I complain about Tinsley when he leisurely brings the ball up court, dribbles around aimlessly for 15-20 seconds, then tries to start the offense. He did that at times last night and it drove me nuts.

But early in the game when we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, he was hitting 4/5 to get us some critically needed offense and keep the game close. And don't forget DA took a few very ill advised shots during that run that could have cost us big so was hardly perfect. Armstrong shot 1-7 from three point land and some of those never should have been taken to begin with.

imawhat
01-26-2007, 01:01 AM
The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

But we didn't get the deficit because of Tinsley, really. He was setting up his teammates well, nobody outside of Murphy was hitting their shots. And JT was doing his part to give us some offense when he could see most everybody else struggling.


I think that's a huge part of it though. I don't think he's setting up his teammates at all. The only play I saw him "involved" in was the re-entry when he posted up Williams. Did you know that his first pass to Mike Dunleavy was in the middle-late 3rd quarter (at least that's the first I saw)? If he's not dribbling he's not doing anything on the floor to help his teammates. I will say there were a couple of exceptions, like the one pass he caught under the goal, but for the most part there's nothing. And as soon as he's out, the rotation gets better and players start finding the ball where they like it. And they even run down the floor faster.

MagicRat
01-26-2007, 01:33 AM
Did you know that his first pass to Mike Dunleavy was in the middle-late 3rd quarter (at least that's the first I saw)?

You must've gone for snacks at precisely the wrong times......

MagicRat
01-26-2007, 02:00 AM
The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

Jamaal left the game in the second quarter with the Pacers down by 3. They were down by 7 at half.

Miami then opens the second half by scoring on their first 5 possessions to push it up to 18 on two Wade baskets, two Haslem baskets and a Kapono 3. The Pacers during that same stretch went Murphy miss, Dunleavy turnover, JO miss, Dunleavy miss, Dunleavy turnover.

And it's all Jamaal Tinsley's fault........:tongue:

quiller
01-26-2007, 02:23 AM
I have not watched every pacer game... I was leary about exchanging Dun for Jax. I thought we would miss Jax on Defense and figured Dun would not be a better shooter but I did know Dun would move better on the offensive end so I figured that would make up for his defensive laps... I was estatic about getting Murphy for Al and exchanging Ike for Sars...

I hoped and expected Murph JO to work worlds better then Al JO both in scoring and rebounding.....

I love Ike as a better option for resting JO at the power foward spot... he gives us another big who is capable of guarding the likes of Sheed, Kristic and now Webber ect away from the basket better then JO...

With tins.. I have been following the debate for a while... my take.. IMO from what i have seen Tins has been much better this year game in game out being more consistant about playing defense and running the offense. I have seen few mano mano events that I do think is one of his major problems.. but about sharing the ball and taking too many shots over all I haven't looked each and every game but it seems to me there is normally three other pacers taking as many or more shots each game then Tin's... and lookin at the over all stats.. he is 4th on the team in FGA's per game... Behind JO who has 598, Al who had 541 and Jax who had 477 in 40 games as a pacer... Tin's has 480 in 41 games.. 1 more game only 3 more shots...

This means game in game out JO and Al were getting the most shots.. with Jax then getting a few more per game then Tin's.... yes most people would like to see Granger and I do no disagree get more shots then Tin's but the reality is Granger really started off very very slow this year.. was no aggresive at all in taking shots and to expect 4 players on your team to get more shots then your pt guard is a little difficult..

for the record.. nash who is renound on this board for his team ball and such is second on his team in shot attempts.... and I would think most Pg in the league will be in the top three of their teams... I imagine if you we keep record from the trade on I bet even with Tin's starting he will not take more shots on this team then JO, Granger, Murphy and Dun's..... so no I do not see how Tin's is going to hurt this team by taking too many shots... and yes I was disapointed by DA coming off a game where he obviously played a high amount of minutes so he probably had dead legs taking a lot of three point shots... just some other stats.... JT only took 1 3 point shot of his 6-11 DA took 10 shots and was 1-7 from 3

To me DA should be limited to 15-18 minutes a game in four seperate stretches and Tins getting 30 to 33 minutes....

Team Indy
01-26-2007, 05:21 AM
It is really hard to get 2007 draft picks right now. That trio might get you the PG but not the pick. Also, why would any team that is projected to have a good pick want Foster or Tins?

One point guard who is available and might be able to help us is Carlos Arroyo. ORL doesn't have many bigs; they roll with only Howard, Battie and Darko. Harrison + filler for Arroyo, unless people think he's too much like Saras.

BlueNGold
01-26-2007, 07:40 AM
for the record.. nash who is renound on this board for his team ball and such is second on his team in shot attempts.... and I would think most Pg in the league will be in the top three of their teams... I imagine if you we keep record from the trade on I bet even with Tin's starting he will not take more shots on this team then JO, Granger, Murphy and Dun's..... so no I do not see how Tin's is going to hurt this team by taking too many shots... and yes I was disapointed by DA coming off a game where he obviously played a high amount of minutes so he probably had dead legs taking a lot of three point shots... just some other stats.... JT only took 1 3 point shot of his 6-11 DA took 10 shots and was 1-7 from 3

To me DA should be limited to 15-18 minutes a game in four seperate stretches and Tins getting 30 to 33 minutes....

The problem is not that Tinsley makes too many shots, it's that he misses such a large percentage of them. BTW, the same can be said about MDJ if he doesn't start shooting better. However, at least MDJ shoots very well at the line.

I would not mind a shoot first PG if he made his shots. No, I would not mind Nash one bit. But with all due respect, bringing Nash into the conversation simply highlights how much better of a PG Nash is...both in shooting and playmaking.

The problem with Tinsley is less his attitude and health. It's that his strength is supposed to be on offense...because he is a poor defender. But, he is not only a bad defender, but a poor offensive player with a below avg fg% and below avg in assists as a starting PG.

Unclebuck
01-26-2007, 10:17 AM
I don't want to start a new thread for this, but I enjoyed reading this article out of the Bay area.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/basketball/nba/golden_state_warriors/16549900.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp



Kawakami: As dust settles for Warriors, Mullin finds his comfort level

Tim Kawakami
Mercury News

Chris Mullin never rules out anything and loves to fade into the shadows, out of sight, until the lightning strike.

``I don't broadcast,'' he said this week, and that's a typical massive understatement from Mr. Radio Silence.

So imagine my surprise when the Warriors chief recently answered my question about Jason Richardson's future in the most emphatic terms I've heard Mullin use.

My question: A week ago you gave a rejuvenating jolt to the franchise by trading Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy to Indiana; could Richardson, another of your old favorites, be next out the door?

``Jason?'' Mullin said, bolting up in his seat. ``No. I've seen Jason enough to say, `No.' ''

No, as in: Richardson's not going anywhere. Right, Chris? Anybody asks about him, you say . . .

``No,'' Mullin said.

If you want to know how comfortable Mullin feels about his roster, featuring the additions of ex-Pacers Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson, there it was.

Mullin has Don Nelson as his coach, Baron Davis, Harrington and Richardson as his centerpieces, Andris Biedrins and Monta Ellis blooming, and now sounds more comfortable than I've ever heard him during his three-season tenure.

Mullin doesn't deny that the Warriors could use another big man. He won't rule out making any move that could bring the playoffs into view.

But he said that Richardson is ``absolutely'' on another level than Dunleavy and Murphy. Even though Richardson (due back from his broken hand in a few weeks) hasn't been healthy enough to show much to Nelson yet, Mullin said Richardson has proved his worth.

``Nellie's waiting for him with open arms,'' Mullin said.

Maybe this was just post-trade languor. Maybe Mullin will change his mind if Richardson is the price he has to pay to land a key big man. But it doesn't sound like it.

``We're more athletic, longer, just tougher physically,'' Mullin said. ``I think we can match up one-on-one more, offensively and defensively. I think we've seen that. It's been apparent.

``It's got me excited. I think it's a nice team for Nellie to have moving forward. And then you talk about one of the top players not having an impact yet. Get him back, let's see what we have.''

By the way, I talked with Mullin before the Warriors beat New Jersey on Ellis' buzzer-beater Wednesday, which ended a three-game post-trade losing streak and crept the Warriors back to within range of the eighth playoff spot.

Everything that happened in the game, from Harrington's 29 points to the tight, active defense in the final minutes, illustrated Mullin's point.

Afterward, Harrington said that he doesn't see the need for more major retooling. You couldn't use one more player, Al?

``I really don't think so,'' Harrington said. ``Maybe a `big,' a shot-blocking `big.' But I don't know if he could help us because of the way that we run. For the style that we play, I think this is a great team.

``I like the team we've got right now. I'd rather keep the team just how it is.''

No arguments out of Mullin on that point. The Warriors were 19-20 when he pulled the trigger on the eight-player trade. Murphy was harrowingly bad. Dunleavy was up and down and getting booed either way. Ike Diogu was lost.

Murphy and Dunleavy had big, long-term contracts handed to them by Mullin. The Warriors were sinking.

``I felt like we needed a change,'' Mullin said. ``But a good change. Not any change.''

He had defended Murphy and Dunleavy for years (mostly from me, I should add). He gave them the big deals and was criticized for both. Was it hard to trade them after so much history?

``Not really, no,'' Mullin said. ``I think the world of them and I think they're going to be good players. And part of me thinks that it would've happened here. But I just felt good about the deal.''

But Dunleavy was your guy from Day One, Chris. Were you in a way letting the world know that he had failed as a Warrior?

``I still think the same things about Mike,'' Mullin said. ``Now the one thing that didn't happen was consistency. He played some really good stretches. That's not a secret. But I think as far as his talent and skill level, there's no reason he shouldn't be a really good player.''

Mullin suggested that he would have been willing to move Dunleavy and/or Murphy last summer. But Nelson, hired in August, wanted to see if Murphy could play center and Dunleavy power forward in Nelson's open offense.

``I had a little more feeling about the way our team was, and Nellie wanted to look at it,'' Mullin said. ``That was something we talked about together.''

Nelson looked at it, and let the whole world know when the experiment failed.

Did Nelson push you to make this trade? Mullin smiled at that one, and went Radio Silent again.

He looked comfortable with any possible interpretation. He looked comfortable about everything, as comfortable as he has been in three years.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out Tim Kawakami's Talking Points blog at www.mercextra.com/blogs/ kawakami. Contact him at tkawakami@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5442.

imawhat
01-26-2007, 04:12 PM
Jamaal left the game in the second quarter with the Pacers down by 3. They were down by 7 at half.

Miami then opens the second half by scoring on their first 5 possessions to push it up to 18 on two Wade baskets, two Haslem baskets and a Kapono 3. The Pacers during that same stretch went Murphy miss, Dunleavy turnover, JO miss, Dunleavy miss, Dunleavy turnover.

And it's all Jamaal Tinsley's fault........:tongue:


I don't think it's all Jamaal's fault, but I don't think it's coincidence either...especially after about ten straight games where the team plays better with Jamaal out of the lineup.

able
01-26-2007, 09:02 PM
I don't think it's all Jamaal's fault, but I don't think it's coincidence either...especially after about ten straight games where the team plays better with Jamaal out of the lineup.

Uhhhh can you please show the numbers to back that up?

over the year,

Darrel:
PPG 4.2 16.128
RPG 1.5 5.76
APG 1.8 6.912
SPG .81 3.110
BPG .10 0.384
FG% .418
FT% .730
3P% .325
MPG 12.5 48



Jamaal:

PPG 12.5 19.478
RPG 3.5 5.436
APG 6.3 9.786
SPG 1.59 2.469
BPG .44 0.683
FG% .381
FT% .704
3P% .313
MPG 30.9 48

Their shooting percentage is pretty close, considering everything I would say that JT might not look better in your eyes, but on paper and on the court he remains the better PG, certainly if you consider that most his stats are v starters

docpaul
01-26-2007, 09:15 PM
Uhhhh can you please show the numbers to back that up?

over the year,

Darrel:
PPG 4.2 16.128
RPG 1.5 5.76
APG 1.8 6.912
SPG .81 3.110
BPG .10 0.384
FG% .418
FT% .730
3P% .325
MPG 12.5 48



Jamaal:

PPG 12.5 19.478
RPG 3.5 5.436
APG 6.3 9.786
SPG 1.59 2.469
BPG .44 0.683
FG% .381
FT% .704
3P% .313
MPG 30.9 48

Their shooting percentage is pretty close, considering everything I would say that JT might not look better in your eyes, but on paper and on the court he remains the better PG, certainly if you consider that most his stats are v starters

This is a tough one Able. Tinsley is clearly the player with the better pedigree, the higher expectations, the talk of All Star visits a couple of years ago. Stats that look pretty good compared to Armstrong.

But don't you have that feeling in your gut that when Armstrong is in there, he just provides that spark? Feels like it to me at least. The only stat that I believe can attempt to quantify those non-tangible contributions is the +/-, and low and behold:

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0607.html

I think those data at least point to the possibility that DA is a better presence on the floor. Wish it weren't the case, but.. it is what it is.

able
01-26-2007, 09:32 PM
This is a tough one Able. Tinsley is clearly the player with the better pedigree, the higher expectations, the talk of All Star visits a couple of years ago. Stats that look pretty good compared to Armstrong.

But don't you have that feeling in your gut that when Armstrong is in there, he just provides that spark? Feels like it to me at least. The only stat that I believe can attempt to quantify those non-tangible contributions is the +/-, and low and behold:

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0607.html

I think those data at least point to the possibility that DA is a better presence on the floor. Wish it weren't the case, but.. it is what it is.
All the plus minus shows you is that when he is in, at times the team scores, and if not he's taken out.

His energy is great, but something a PG can do 32-34 minutes a night, night in night out, 82 + games a seaons, no way.

I love what DA brings when he's in, but as a backup.

If he had to play the Billups, Nash, and other premier PG's night in and night out, for long stretches, his numbers would dwindle.

There are 30 teams in this leage, there are more teams with a worse PG then ones with a better one.

On top of all of that, JT as to not only overcome fans that dislike him because he doesn't wear his soul on his sleeve, but also a coach who still doesn't like him.

ALF68
01-26-2007, 10:00 PM
All the plus minus shows you is that when he is in, at times the team scores, and if not he's taken out.

His energy is great, but something a PG can do 32-34 minutes a night, night in night out, 82 + games a seaons, no way.

I love what DA brings when he's in, but as a backup.

If he had to play the Billups, Nash, and other premier PG's night in and night out, for long stretches, his numbers would dwindle.

There are 30 teams in this leage, there are more teams with a worse PG then ones with a better one.

On top of all of that, JT as to not only overcome fans that dislike him because he doesn't wear his soul on his sleeve, but also a coach who still doesn't like him.




On top of all of that, JT as to not only overcome fans that dislike him because he doesn't wear his soul on his sleeve, but also a coach who still doesn't like him.[/quote]

Wow! How did you arrive at the conclusion that Rick doesn't like Tins?
Like you told the poster, you got proof of this or is this just a wild accusation that you have conjured up in your mind. I just happen to agree with the poster, the Pacers are better when Tins is on the bench.

docpaul
01-26-2007, 10:05 PM
All the plus minus shows you is that when he is in, at times the team scores, and if not he's taken out.

His energy is great, but something a PG can do 32-34 minutes a night, night in night out, 82 + games a seaons, no way.

I love what DA brings when he's in, but as a backup.

If he had to play the Billups, Nash, and other premier PG's night in and night out, for long stretches, his numbers would dwindle.

There are 30 teams in this leage, there are more teams with a worse PG then ones with a better one.

On top of all of that, JT as to not only overcome fans that dislike him because he doesn't wear his soul on his sleeve, but also a coach who still doesn't like him.

Fair enough. Hopefully DA will continue to be potent as that backup spark. I think at the end of the day that I've really tried hard to give Tinsley a fresh attempt this year, as he's seemed to be somewhat unhappy over the past couple of years. I think he's genuinely attempted to be more consistent with PT, and to be a little more reliable as a presence on the team. Coming in that game early in the year when he was clearly under the weather, and playing clutch meant a lot to me as a fan at least. He played as if he had something to prove that night. I'd personally like to see that more during routine games. Kind of like what we see from DA.

I think what most people truly care about at the end of the day though, is the final outcome, and I believe that given the current lineup, there's not really much else to blame underwhelming results on. PG is the team's weakness at this point, and Tinsley really has an opportunity to show why he deserves to be the starter, and deserving of fan's respect/praise.

Someone who gives a damn about being on the team would ask for nothing more. I think it's up to him now.

speakout4
01-26-2007, 10:38 PM
Fair enough. Hopefully DA will continue to be potent as that backup spark. I think at the end of the day that I've really tried hard to give Tinsley a fresh attempt this year, as he's seemed to be somewhat unhappy over the past couple of years. I think he's genuinely attempted to be more consistent with PT, and to be a little more reliable as a presence on the team. Coming in that game early in the year when he was clearly under the weather, and playing clutch meant a lot to me as a fan at least. He played as if he had something to prove that night. I'd personally like to see that more during routine games. Kind of like what we see from DA.

I think what most people truly care about at the end of the day though, is the final outcome, and I believe that given the current lineup, there's not really much else to blame underwhelming results on. PG is the team's weakness at this point, and Tinsley really has an opportunity to show why he deserves to be the starter, and deserving of fan's respect/praise.

Someone who gives a damn about being on the team would ask for nothing more. I think it's up to him now.

Do you enjoy watching the game more when JT is the pg or when DA is the pg? The last game I didn't care if the pacers won just watching DA bring the team back was enjoyable for me. We have been making excuses for JT for years. Some have to do with ability and some health related. We are stuck with JT because no one is going to give us any one any better. JT just hasn't got what it takes to be a consistent above average player. that's it; it's not his fault that he is just average. I believe he was drafted late in the 1st round and in his case that was where his talent was.

imawhat
01-27-2007, 12:41 AM
Uhhhh can you please show the numbers to back that up?

over the year,

Darrel:
PPG 4.2 16.128
RPG 1.5 5.76
APG 1.8 6.912
SPG .81 3.110
BPG .10 0.384
FG% .418
FT% .730
3P% .325
MPG 12.5 48



Jamaal:

PPG 12.5 19.478
RPG 3.5 5.436
APG 6.3 9.786
SPG 1.59 2.469
BPG .44 0.683
FG% .381
FT% .704
3P% .313
MPG 30.9 48

Their shooting percentage is pretty close, considering everything I would say that JT might not look better in your eyes, but on paper and on the court he remains the better PG, certainly if you consider that most his stats are v starters


First of all, I wasn't comparing Jamaal to Darrell. I'm comparing the team's play with/without Jamaal in the lineup. Secondly, to use the term "better" to describe team play runs the risk of being too subjective, so no stat I show you will (dis)prove that. I could pull the team's FG%, TO rate, and defensive FG% and points scored and compare the two figures, but then there are other factors (which is why I don't get into +/- that much). But, to me, it's subjectively obvious that the team has been playing better when he is not in the lineup, especially lately. The ball moves better, there's more energy, there's less dribble penetration, and so on. I can't think of a single facet of the game that is better with Tinsley in the lineup. Can you disagree with that?

I'm definitely not making a case of DA vs. JT here. I'd be perfectly content if Darrell didn't shoot anything other than layups. By the end of the year he'll barely be able to get the ball to the rim with his torn rotator cuff. And we can't expect him to play well in the playoffs if he has to keep exerting this much energy. Ideally, Tinsley will get his act together and play basketball like he did in his rookie season. But that's ideal, and probably nothing more.

MagicRat
01-27-2007, 01:26 AM
I might've argued that it's subjectively obvious the ball doesn't move because of JO and Rick, not Jamaal, but I've already reached my basketball post quota for the month.......

able
01-27-2007, 06:42 AM
First of all, I wasn't comparing Jamaal to Darrell.This is of course in contradiction with:


I'm comparing the team's play with/without Jamaal in the lineup.
If not a comparison between Jamaal and Darrel then why didn't you say others, and you are then basing your entire premise on 1 game. which is incorrect for starters, "every fool.....(etc)"


Secondly, to use the term "better" to describe team play runs the risk of being too subjective, so no stat I show you will (dis)prove that. I could pull the team's FG%, TO rate, and defensive FG% and points scored and compare the two figures, but then there are other factors (which is why I don't get into +/- that much). But, to me, it's subjectively obvious that the team has been playing better when he is not in the lineup, especially lately.

Again, Tinsley has missed one game, so you have seen our starters play 1 game partially with DA, I would suggest that "subjective" is an understatement in that case.
There are "5 man +/- stats, which have Tinsley in 8 of the 10 best playing lineups, and in the first 6 for good measurement, seems that hard facts do not support your subjective assessment.


The ball moves better, there's more energy, there's less dribble penetration, and so on.
I must have missed that part, if you are talking about the game v Miami, which can be your only sample with DA playing v starters, then I politely disagree, DA might get 0.6 more of a steal per game, if both would play 48 minutes, but he gets overrun just as hard, and gambles more on defense, with sometimes disastrous results.

I can't think of a single facet of the game that is better with Tinsley in the lineup. Can you disagree with that?
without a problem can I disagree with that, and not only I can, perhaps everybody around the team as well, seeing as Tinsley is still the starting PG adn Rick has shown over the years to have no problem benching JT unlike some other players.
You also seem to forget that the statistical "truth" you derive from one game and "the backup time" DA played, is that once again there is a whole new starting 5 out there, where 2 players have been constant this season, Tinsley and JO, the bench on the other hand has had very little variation, in other words DA has a "comfortlevel" with those players, hence the few passes Tins throws that are not caught by for instance Murphy and Dunleavy, neither player knows how fast the ball is coming and Tinsley doesn't know enough to know where those players are comfortable receiving the ball; examples, ball to the corner to Murphy through his hands, he hardly saw it, good pass nonetheless, Murphy to Tins, ball back straight away, Murph not ready (though in this one I'm not sure it wasn't Dun).
Those are plays that will go smooth in a few weeks time.

I'm definitely not making a case of DA vs. JT here. I'd be perfectly content if Darrell didn't shoot anything other than layups. By the end of the year he'll barely be able to get the ball to the rim with his torn rotator cuff. And we can't expect him to play well in the playoffs if he has to keep exerting this much energy. Ideally, Tinsley will get his act together and play basketball like he did in his rookie season. But that's ideal, and probably nothing more.
Perhaps the change of coaching made the difference in his play, perhaps there's not enough synergy between the coach and player(s)
Tinsley has made an effort to play all games, and has missed only 1 game this season, he has played 33 min avg, has a very good Ast/TO ratio, and his EFF rating is #3 on this team, behind only JO and Murphy.

I fail to see where you made your point other then subjective and since I do not see things with your eyes, I can not adhere to that.


I might've argued that it's subjectively obvious the ball doesn't move because of JO and Rick, not Jamaal, but I've already reached my basketball post quota for the month.......


To bad, I would've loved to read that :)

imawhat
01-27-2007, 03:35 PM
This is of course in contradiction with:

If not a comparison between Jamaal and Darrel then why didn't you say others, and you are then basing your entire premise on 1 game. which is incorrect for starters, "every fool.....(etc)"


Like I said, I'm not comparing Jamaal with Darrell; I'm not sure why you spent half of a post trying to counter that.

I'm comparing team play when Jamaal is in with team play when Jamaal is out.

Jamaal has been playing subpar nearly all season. But it's been especially noticeable since late December, and became very visible in our first game against Dallas.




There are "5 man +/- stats, which have Tinsley in 8 of the 10 best playing lineups, and in the first 6 for good measurement, seems that hard facts do not support your subjective assessment.

.....without a problem can I disagree with that, and not only I can, perhaps everybody around the team as well, seeing as Tinsley is still the starting PG adn Rick has shown over the years to have no problem benching JT unlike some other players.

Well I guess everybody around the team would also disagree that Al played poorly too, since he also remained in the starting lineup.

By the way, Rick has never benched Tinsley. Kenny Anderson was given the starting job in Rick's first year as coach and Kenny was benched in favor of Tinsley after a stretch of excellent play.




You also seem to forget that the statistical "truth" you derive from one game and "the backup time" DA played, is that once again there is a whole new starting 5 out there, where 2 players have been constant this season, Tinsley and JO, the bench on the other hand has had very little variation, in other words DA has a "comfortlevel" with those players, hence the few passes Tins throws that are not caught by for instance Murphy and Dunleavy..............

I fail to see where you made your point other then subjective and since I do not see things with your eyes, I can not adhere to that.

Okay, I'll try it objectively. I don't have a lot of time to sift through games, but if someone wants to add, please feel free. I picked the first quarter of the Miami game for comparison, since I remembered Tinsley coming out at the 6 minute mark (halfway through the quarter). Here are some stats for you:


--------------------------------------------------------------
With Tinsley in the lineup:

Possessions: 12

8: Possessions with 1 pass
2: Possessions with 2 passes
1: Possessions with 3 passes
1: Possessions with 4 or more passes

0 Fast Breaks


With Tinsley out of the lineup:

Possessions: 11

3: Possessions with 1 pass
2: Possessions with 2 passes
2: Possessions with 3 passes
4: Possessions with 4 or more passes

3 Fast Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------




So there you're looking at around 19 passes in 12 possessions with Jamaal in the lineup and 29 passes in 11 possessions with Jamaal out of the lineup. 0 fast breaks with Jamaal in the lineup and 3 with Jamaal out of the lineup. 6 of 11 of Jamaal's passes went to Jermaine, on which he shot twice. 3 went to Murphy. 2 total passes from Jamaal went to the wing players.




... Originally Posted by imawhat http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?p=535621#post535621)
Did you know that his first pass to Mike Dunleavy was in the middle-late 3rd quarter (at least that's the first I saw)?...


You must've gone for snacks at precisely the wrong times......

Apparently I went for snacks at 7:34 in the 1st and 5:11 in the 2nd, because those were the only two passes that Jamaal threw to Mike Dunleavy in the entire first half.

On the first substitutions for Jamaal in the first and second quarters, a total of three passes were thrown to Mike Dunleavy in the first 10 seconds by the point guard. And he was just as open and in great position to make a play in both situations.

But Jamaal did throw it to a completely surrounded Jermaine O'Neal while Mike was wide open with an opportunity to drive or pass to a wide open Granger/Murphy, and twice the ball was deflected from Jermaine.

Jamaal ended up passing to Mike Dunleavy a whopping total of 6 times for the entire Miami game. And for what it's worth, I've yet to see a single pass from Tinsley to MDJ or TM that has been mishandled.






able, my sample is very small, but I can guarantee that you could expand that sample into the past month and you'll find a significant difference in ball movement, fast breaks, and distribution with Jamaal in and out of the lineup. Like I said, the ball moves better and the players want to run when Jamaal is not in the lineup. And defensively, I'm not sure how anyone can question that Jamaal is the sole cause of opponents' dribble penetration. We've seen in the past month that opponents are getting to the hoop, even without running a pick and roll, and that all starts with the point guard.



I want to know which facet of the game that you think is better when Jamaal is in the lineup. Because for now, I don't see one.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-29-2007, 10:24 AM
In the six games since the trade was announced, JO is shooting .396 from the field. What's up with that? Are they forcing the ball into him because they don't know what else to do with it? Isn't Murphy's jump shot supposed to open up the floor for Jermaine? Prior to the trade he was shooting .460 now his average has fallen to .449.

able
01-29-2007, 11:15 AM
By the way, Rick has never benched Tinsley. Kenny Anderson was given the starting job in Rick's first year as coach and Kenny was benched in favor of Tinsley after a stretch of excellent play.

I believe that JT was the starting PG the season before KA arrived, and (KA) was handed the starting position striaght away.
Miek bringing JT in and JT singlehandedly bringing us almost back to a win from (if memory serves me) 28 down, was why he got "more" minutes after that and the starting pos back few games later.

It is called "benching" if that happens to a starter.



Okay, I'll try it objectively. I don't have a lot of time to sift through games, but if someone wants to add, please feel free. I picked the first quarter of the Miami game for comparison, since I remembered Tinsley coming out at the 6 minute mark (halfway through the quarter). Here are some stats for you:


--------------------------------------------------------------
With Tinsley in the lineup:

Possessions: 12

8: Possessions with 1 pass
2: Possessions with 2 passes
1: Possessions with 3 passes
1: Possessions with 4 or more passes

0 Fast Breaks


With Tinsley out of the lineup:

Possessions: 11

3: Possessions with 1 pass
2: Possessions with 2 passes
2: Possessions with 3 passes
4: Possessions with 4 or more passes

3 Fast Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------




So there you're looking at around 19 passes in 12 possessions with Jamaal in the lineup and 29 passes in 11 possessions with Jamaal out of the lineup. 0 fast breaks with Jamaal in the lineup and 3 with Jamaal out of the lineup. 6 of 11 of Jamaal's passes went to Jermaine, on which he shot twice. 3 went to Murphy. 2 total passes from Jamaal went to the wing players.





Apparently I went for snacks at 7:34 in the 1st and 5:11 in the 2nd, because those were the only two passes that Jamaal threw to Mike Dunleavy in the entire first half.

On the first substitutions for Jamaal in the first and second quarters, a total of three passes were thrown to Mike Dunleavy in the first 10 seconds by the point guard. And he was just as open and in great position to make a play in both situations.

But Jamaal did throw it to a completely surrounded Jermaine O'Neal while Mike was wide open with an opportunity to drive or pass to a wide open Granger/Murphy, and twice the ball was deflected from Jermaine.

Jamaal ended up passing to Mike Dunleavy a whopping total of 6 times for the entire Miami game. And for what it's worth, I've yet to see a single pass from Tinsley to MDJ or TM that has been mishandled.


I sincerely suggest you watch that game again, there are at least 3 passes that "go through the hands" )TM twice, MD once "at least".

Last night (Det) MD was the recipient of 3 passes in rapid succession in the beginning of the game, he went 0-3 despite being open.

A PG not throwing the ball to "new" players is not strange, they may be out of position, the passing lane mightbe closed despite the player being "open" and so on, familiarity of "where they want the ball" is also very important, better to go "safe" then to "risk" another turnover.



able, my sample is very small, but I can guarantee that you could expand that sample into the past month and you'll find a significant difference in ball movement, fast breaks, and distribution with Jamaal in and out of the lineup. Like I said, the ball moves better and the players want to run when Jamaal is not in the lineup. And defensively, I'm not sure how anyone can question that Jamaal is the sole cause of opponents' dribble penetration. We've seen in the past month that opponents are getting to the hoop, even without running a pick and roll, and that all starts with the point guard.
Guess that is why Billups had 3 outstanding games against us.




I want to know which facet of the game that you think is better when Jamaal is in the lineup. Because for now, I don't see one.
Simple answer: every facet of the game is better.

Michigan central st.
01-29-2007, 01:42 PM
There are 30 teams in this leage, there are more teams with a worse PG then ones with a better one.


There was a big poll on realgm about pg rankings in the NBA about a week ago and Tinsley ended up between 15 and 25 on most people's list, on average I'd say 18-19.

Apparently, Tinman is seen as a worse than average starting pg by the broad public nowadays.

able
01-29-2007, 01:50 PM
There was a big poll on realgm about pg rankings in the NBA about a week ago and Tinsley ended up between 15 and 25 on most people's list, on average I'd say 18-19.

Apparently, Tinman is seen as a worse than average starting pg by the broad public nowadays.
You are here refering to the same "broad public" that voted for the All Star starters right ?

QED

Michigan central st.
01-29-2007, 02:22 PM
No, I'm not.

Behind the apparent trolls you probably find the widest spectrum of interested NBA fans at realgm. The people that click the NBA page and send in their votes, possible on a daily basis, can probably be seen as a broad public in a wider sense than the average realgm poster who, correctly, would have prefered Nash and Dirk in the starting 5 of the allstar game as well as the last MVP going to Dirk or Bron and not Nash.

I think its safe to say that a poll like that will give a fair impression of what the NBA fans think of the players in the league, and there is no reason to feel hurt because Tinman is seen as a slightly below average starting pg just because you are a huge fan. Your opinion of him doesn't change because of this, does it?

brich
01-29-2007, 02:31 PM
I think something else that we badly need is a pure shooter, particularly a 3 point shooter.

I think we have become a better shooting team with the trade, but some of the new guys are still streaky at best.

If we get into half-court slog ball, and they collapse on JO, we have some good mid-range guys to help open it up, but I am not confident we have a consistent long-range threat.

able
01-29-2007, 08:34 PM
I think its safe to say that a poll like that will give a fair impression of what the NBA fans think of the players in the league, and there is no reason to feel hurt because Tinman is seen as a slightly below average starting pg just because you are a huge fan. Your opinion of him doesn't change because of this, does it?
For the fact that polls and fair impressions are totally mutually exclusive, and the fact that realgm is mutually exclusive to both those words you assessment is way off.

I have been called a fanboy, a hater, a eurohater, ad bushbasher, a democrat, a socialist, a jackson fan, an artest fan, a JO fan, a Miller fan.
And now in your (unwanted) attempt at sarcasm I am called a "Huge Tinsley fan" who's feeling might be hurt by the "fair impression" of the outcome of a "poll" (notice the lack of words such as "scientific, statistical corrected") on "realgm".

It is attitudes like this that formed the bases for the decision to "come down hard" on "demeaning posts"

If you can not stay within bounds, please leave.

brichard
01-29-2007, 09:05 PM
able,

I tell ya', I have to agree with the DA fans right now. We are relying a bit too much on an older guy like DA, but we play at a much higher level with him in IMO. The stats you listed were really not that resoundingly in favor of Tinsley when you look at the minutes played. And actually, DA seems to be the higher percentage scorer.

Tinsley is a guy who can play at a very high level. I've seen him score and pass with the best of them. But, he also has a pre-disposition to get in 1 on 1 battles (which can hurt the overall team) he has oft been injured, and his defensive abilities are below average. Somebody showed a type of plus/minus that showed the net effect when our team members were in. JO was number one b/c of his effect on the defense. Anyway, it would be interesting to see a similar scale with JT and DA over the last month.

JT has the better offensive guard skills, when he wants to use them, and DA has the better defensive skills. I guess part of my comfort level with Darrell is that I know what he gives you he can give you every night. He has outstanding defense and a contagious enthusiasm that gets everybody going. JT is like a box of chocolates... you never now what you're gonna get.

I'm a sucker for the hustle guys and DA is very reminiscent of Heywood Workman.

Slick Pinkham
01-29-2007, 10:32 PM
There are 30 teams in this leage, there are more teams with a worse PG then ones with a better one.


I’ll name 31 NBA PGs who are better:

starting PGs who are better than Tins in no particular order:
G Arenas
D Williams
TJ Ford
Mike Bibby
Tony Parker
Steve Nash
Andre Miller
Jameer Nelson
Chris Paul
Stephon Marbury
Jason Kidd
Mo Williams
Mike James
Jason Williams
Shaun Livingston
Baron Davis
Chauncey Billups
Allen Iverson
Devin Harris
Raymond Felton
Delonte West
Kirk Hinrich

Backup PGs who are ALSO better than Tins
Brevin Knight
Chris Duhon
Steve Blake
Sam Cassell
Jordan Farmar
Damon Stoudamire
Marcus Williams
Bobby Jackson
Jose Calderon


Leaving this:

Starting PGs that Tins is better than:
Eric Snow
Ty Lue (though sometimes Joe Johnson plays PG I think)

starting PGs about the same level, a matter of taste:
Luke Ridnour
Jarrett Jack*
Chucky Atkins
Rafer Alston*
Smush Parker*

* personally I'd prefer Jack, Alston, or Parker to Tins, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt/ homer advantage and limit the list to 31 instead of 34 PGS better than JT




---
Now I’m sure that you can quibble on some on the list, but for your statement to be correct, show me the 16 that should be removed from my list.

I admit that there is no statistical evidence I'm providing, just a "smell test"

BlueNGold
01-29-2007, 10:48 PM
Iíll name 31 NBA PGs who are better:

starting PGs who are better than Tins in no particular order:
G Arenas
D Williams
TJ Ford
Mike Bibby
Tony Parker
Steve Nash
Andre Miller
Jameer Nelson
Chris Paul
Stephon Marbury
Jason Kidd
Mo Williams
Mike James
Jason Williams
Shaun Livingston
Baron Davis
Chauncey Billups
Allen Iverson
Devin Harris
Raymond Felton
Delonte West
Kirk Hinrich

Backup PGs who are ALSO better than Tins
Brevin Knight
Chris Duhon
Steve Blake
Sam Cassell
Jordan Farmar
Damon Stoudamire
Marcus Williams
Bobby Jackson
Jose Calderon


Leaving this:

Starting PGs that Tins is better than:
Ty Lue
Eric Snow

starting PGs about the same level, a matter of taste:
Luke Ridnour
Jarrett Jack
Chucky Atkins
Rafer Alston
Smush Parker


Now Iím sure that you can quibble on some, but for your statement to be correct, show me the 16 that should be removed from my list

There is more truth to this post than I care to even think about.

But I would say Tinsley is better than a few of those guys you list, but I would put him around #25-#30 in the league. Now, it cannot be reasonably questioned that Tinsley is as good as any of these 16 guys:

G Arenas
D Williams
Mike Bibby
Tony Parker
Steve Nash
Andre Miller
Chris Paul
Jason Kidd
Mo Williams
Shaun Livingston
Baron Davis
Chauncey Billups
Allen Iverson
Devin Harris
Kirk Hinrich
Monta Ellis (He is not really a SG IMO)

With that said, it's pretty clear he is a below average starting PG.

If we could just pick from this list with our eyes closed, we would be way ahead!

speakout4
01-29-2007, 11:01 PM
I might've argued that it's subjectively obvious the ball doesn't move because of JO and Rick, not Jamaal, but I've already reached my basketball post quota for the month.......


It seems to me that as much as Rick might slow down the pace of the game for some odd reason when DA is the pg the game speeds up. Hasn't DA gotten the message from Rick to play more slowly or does Darrell not pay attention?

It just seems to me that the ball doesn't move because JT holds the ball too long and others don't.

Jermaniac
01-29-2007, 11:39 PM
Monta Ellis (He is not really a SG IMO)


Monta Ellis is not a PG, at all.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-30-2007, 01:05 AM
Of those 22 starting point guards, Tinsley would rank...

Points-----17th
Rebounds--9th
Assists----10th
Steals-----5th
Effeciency-16th
Ast/TO----12th
FG%-------21st
3PT%------13th
FT%-------22nd
Salary----- 11th Right in the middle with only one player not in his rookie contract making less than he ...Mike James makes around 500,000 less.

I don't think anyone, including Tinsley, ever said he was the best point guard in the league. He's certainly not paid like one, nor was he drafted to be one. I think it's arguable whether or not those 22 players are undeniably better that Jamaal. This arguement rings true for our starting shooting guard,small forward and center as well. I can name 20 better guys at each position but I don't remember why that matters really.

quiller
01-30-2007, 02:30 AM
I don't think anyone, including Tinsley, ever said he was the best point guard in the league. He's certainly not paid like one, nor was he drafted to be one. I think it's arguable whether or not those 22 players are undeniably better that Jamaal. This arguement rings true for our starting shooting guard,small forward and center as well. I can name 20 better guys at each position but I don't remember why that matters really.

This is a really great point.... we talk about how "Tin's" is the problem with this team yet other then JO all our other players on our team really rate at the bottom half PLUS at their position.... similiar to Tin's position.. maybe this needs to go in the how bad is our coach thread... and before I get blasted by those wondering why I have Granger at the bottom half plus is becuase sure in time he might warrent consideration as a elite player but he has not come close to reaching that potential yet.

Mourning
01-30-2007, 06:00 AM
... which should tell you that statistics and talent alone mean almost nothing when the heart, right team attitude or Bball intelligence is just not there.

Those other players might be at the bottom half at their position, personally I don't aggree with Murphy beying listed there but thats besides the point now, but they do mostly "play the right way" and well in a team concept which makes them more valuable then their statistics might indicate.

My beef with Tins, except for his shooting numbers and FG%, are not with his numbers, but with those other things I just mentioned. Positively though, it has to be said, he has remained healthy this year which has me positively surprised.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Dr. Goldfoot
01-30-2007, 11:05 AM
Yeah but heart alone doesn't win basketball games. These Tinsley isn't as good as Nash or Parker arguements are silly and irrelevant. Tinsley doesn't belong in the same malcontent category as Jackson and Artest, yet is often blasted as if he's demanding trades or more touches. In reality, he just goes about his business and keeps winning the Indiana Pacers starting point guard position despite Carlisle's best efforts to supplant him with lesser players over the last few years. I think Tinsley has shown heart by fighting his way back to the top of the point guard list despite constant challenges by coaches, injuries and personal grief.

I'd also like to point out that Tinsley has become the new post trade scapegoat. We should be talking about how the pieces we sent packing were better both offensively and defensively. How they tied up less money over less years. How this trade inexplicably left us with a 38 year old back up point guard who's running on pure energy and hustle, which will run out in time. Which begs the question how is a 38 year old career average point guard beating out young point guards who are supposed to bring the exact thing he's making a second career out of. Isn't Orien Greene supposed to be a defensive energy player wasn't Runi supposed to be a fiery high octane international player? Instead of getting angry over the fact that the actual talented players we sent packing are literally tearing it up in Oakland people are pointing and laughing at how Nelson has told Al to lose 10 pounds and start hitting the boards...why didn't Carlisle take that stance? Indiana fans are wondering if Rawle Marshall should start at the two guard while Al Harrington is dropping over 25 a game out West. Everybody is praising Dunleavy's effort and basketball IQ while Jackson is hitting almost 50% of his three's and Al is hitting almost 65% of his while Dunleavy is shooting sub 40% from the field. Powell has put up 10 boards and 16 points in 2 games while Diogu has given us 10 and 12 in 5 games.

Those are just points we should be talking about in a thread titled post trade thoughts. Why does everything have to go back to Tinsley Sucks?

Slick Pinkham
01-30-2007, 11:23 AM
Why does everything have to go back to Tinsley Sucks?

Because his inability to stop dribble penetration has been the primary defensive weakness of this team for many years now

and

at no position on the court do the Pacers have a starter who is arguably less talented than 25-35 other players in the league that play his position, including some backups?

Dr. Goldfoot
01-30-2007, 11:35 AM
If he's constantly getting beat by dribble penetration why doesn't Carlisle make some sort of defensive adjustment? You have to remember Tinsley can beat his man off the dribble just as often as he gets beaten. Why we aren't exploiting that more, I have no idea. He can also post up on most point guards in the league and we aren't exploiting that either. He also has an uncanny knack for finding the open man but we keep walking it up the court...waiting for JO to get into position with 12 seconds left on the shot clock...lob it into him and see what he does. Then everybody comes on the message boards to blast Tinsley for holding the ball too long and slowing down the tempo and not getting enough assists or ball movement.

There are 25-30 better swingmen than the 3 we currently have. I'd have to actually look up the centers.

Cobol Sam
01-30-2007, 11:44 AM
Able I wish I would have been on last night to help you with the JT attacks. Truth be told, all this is is a greener grass argument.

I'll get you next time.

3rdStrike
01-30-2007, 11:44 AM
I like Tinsley. But the team needs to trade him while he still has some value at all and try to get a young PG who can shoot.

Here's my post-trade thought: Why does everyone talk about Dunleavy's passing when he's averaging 2.8 APG with the P's? That would be fine if he was shooting lights out, but we all know that isn't the case.

Young
01-30-2007, 12:54 PM
Tinsley has his strengths and he has his weaknesses just like every player.

The problem that I have is that to change his weaknesses it is easier said than done.

It's things like this:
- Decision making (you can put a lot of things in here like going one on one after he gets beat on defense, making sloppy passes, bad shot selection, holding the ball to long, etc.)
- Poor shooting percentage. I don't know what is worse, his shooting percentages or the fact that it may be common for your point guard to shoot like that. Ouch.
- Defense. It's not that great IMO. He can get some steals but because he doesn't have great quickness he gets beat easily.

You can't really just go to the gym and work on your decision making. You have to study film and go out on the court and know what decisions to make and do it. I've seen Tinsley improve his jump shot, I think it shows that he has worked on that since his rookie year. The problem is that he takes bad shots which lead to a bad shooting percentage.

Now I would love to have a scorer at the point because I think that could really be the missing piece to this team, get someone like say Devin Harris (just throwing out a name) that can get you 15-20 points a night. The problem is that those guys aren't avaliable. Another opition is to get a half court orianted point guard ala Derek Fisher. Someone who can shoot, run the offense, and play smart defense.

The problem is that Tinsley is really right in the middle of the pack of point guards in this league where he isn't enough of an upgrade or is too much of a down grade for a team to make a trade. His salary also hurts because it is higher and longer than probably most of the point guards we have interest in.

imawhat
01-30-2007, 02:11 PM
In the six games since the trade was announced, JO is shooting .396 from the field. What's up with that? Are they forcing the ball into him because they don't know what else to do with it? Isn't Murphy's jump shot supposed to open up the floor for Jermaine? Prior to the trade he was shooting .460 now his average has fallen to .449.


Jermaine hasn't gotten good positioning since the trade, and on top of that teams are collapsing on him more. He's been forced to take tough shots and a couple of passes that normally find him wide open at the elbow have been off. I think it'll take time for opponents to respect Granger/Murphy as much as Jackson/Harrington. So far, it's been worse for Jermaine (and he's playing more minutes).

Slick Pinkham
01-30-2007, 02:19 PM
He's been forced to take tough shots... I think it'll take time for opponents to respect Granger/Murphy as much as Jackson/Harrington.

I disagree. I think that he is getting better shots already, but he is just in a (hopefully short) shooting slump and missing them, like the Miami game when he started out something like 3-17 and he was missing open 10 footers.

The D already respects Murphy's outside shot exponentially more than Foster's (who Murphy replaced in the lineup), and Granger vs. Al and Dunleavy vs. Jackson are probably each as wash in terms of how much the D respects the perimeter threat. His new teammates do need to better learn the spots where Jermaine can easily catch the ball and shoot without holding the ball too much.

imawhat
01-30-2007, 02:26 PM
I believe that JT was the starting PG the season before KA arrived, and (KA) was handed the starting position striaght away.
Miek bringing JT in and JT singlehandedly bringing us almost back to a win from (if memory serves me) 28 down, was why he got "more" minutes after that and the starting pos back few games later.

It is called "benching" if that happens to a starter.


Isiah Thomas was the coach the previous season. And, at the beginning of the season, Rick said every starting position (with the exception of Reggie/JO) was open to whoever played the best. Again, that's not benching. Kenny Anderson "won" the starting spot.




I sincerely suggest you watch that game again, there are at least 3 passes that "go through the hands" )TM twice, MD once "at least".


Those passes were deflected by the opponent. Why else do you think we got the ball back?



Last night (Det) MD was the recipient of 3 passes in rapid succession in the beginning of the game, he went 0-3 despite being open.

Uh, Dunleavy dunked at the beginning of the game, did not miss his first shot until 6:06 in the first quarter.


A PG not throwing the ball to "new" players is not strange, they may be out of position, the passing lane mightbe closed despite the player being "open" and so on, familiarity of "where they want the ball" is also very important, better to go "safe" then to "risk" another turnover.

But he wasn't. I've seen six times in the past three games where Dunleavy had a wide open layup chance on a fast break and Tinsley didn't even look at him. And Tinsley had no problem finding Murphy. In fact, he's passed it to Murphy more than Dunleavy and Granger combined in the first quarter of the past three games.

It's not strange to be unfamiliar with a new player, but it's very strange to not pass it to a wide open player, especially when it happens to be the same player a repeated number of times. And then it stands out even more when a substitution comes in and immediately finds the open player.


Guess that is why Billups had 3 outstanding games against us.

You think that Tinsley's defense has ever caused an opponent to have an off-night? Not even above-average defenders do that.



Simple answer: every facet of the game is better.


You said Tinsley was having a great game when he was 1-6 with 2 AST and 3 TOs, so I can see why you might think that.

brichard
01-30-2007, 09:31 PM
I'd also like to point out that Tinsley has become the new post trade scapegoat. We should be talking about how the pieces we sent packing were better both offensively and defensively. How they tied up less money over less years.

These are good arguments and most have contended that in order to get rid of the almost untradeable Jax, we had to take on somebody else's problem. In this case it was the higher salaries.


How this trade inexplicably left us with a 38 year old back up point guard who's running on pure energy and hustle, which will run out in time. Which begs the question how is a 38 year old career average point guard beating out young point guards who are supposed to bring the exact thing he's making a second career out of. Isn't Orien Greene supposed to be a defensive energy player wasn't Runi supposed to be a fiery high octane international player?

I'm not exactly sure what we are supposed to be mad at. DA is playing at a high level and he's one of those guys who has taken care of himself. Why should we be mad that he is outplaying guys? Shouldn't we be glad he is playing well?


Instead of getting angry over the fact that the actual talented players we sent packing are literally tearing it up in Oakland people are pointing and laughing at how Nelson has told Al to lose 10 pounds and start hitting the boards...why didn't Carlisle take that stance? Indiana fans are wondering if Rawle Marshall should start at the two guard while Al Harrington is dropping over 25 a game out West. Everybody is praising Dunleavy's effort and basketball IQ while Jackson is hitting almost 50% of his three's and Al is hitting almost 65% of his while Dunleavy is shooting sub 40% from the field. Powell has put up 10 boards and 16 points in 2 games while Diogu has given us 10 and 12 in 5 games.?

There is such a thing as having a trade that benefits both teams. You talk about DA running out of gas, yet do you really think Jax is going to keep hitting 3's at a 50% average? What about Troy Murphy averaging 4 double doubles out of the last 5 games? What about getting rid of Sarunas who proved again and again to struggle against guards in the NBA? Harrington is the king of filling up the nets on bad teams, but is that really the issue or is it his inability to be a "team" guy instead of a "me" guy? Diogu is one of those guys that I think few expect an immediate return. He could be one of those potential guys that busts or he can turn into a very solid big man. Dunleavy does have weaknesses, but he works hard out there and doesn't seem to bring the baggage that a guy like Jax had.


Those are just points we should be talking about in a thread titled post trade thoughts. Why does everything have to go back to Tinsley Sucks?

Tinsley has had his fans and detractors on this forum for years. But if you were to take a poll of the two most unpopular players at the beginning of the year it would have been 1.)Jax and 2.) Tinsley. There are lots of things to love and hate about his contributions to the team. You have to love his handle and penetration ability, but you have to hate his inconsistency and defense.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-30-2007, 10:54 PM
I was just pointing out some more appropriate post trade topics other than the usual thread falling into the pro/anti Jamaal Tinsley drivel.

diamonddave00
01-31-2007, 07:15 PM
I'd like to see the Pacers get Troy Murphy more involved in the offense , he is being wasted player 25 minutes a night and only taking 9 shots a game. The reason he was acquired was to stop double teaming of JO playing that little and limiting his shots is not addressing why he was acquired.