PDA

View Full Version : Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three



Unclebuck
07-06-2007, 08:25 AM
The only thing I'm a little leery about is O'Brien's insistance on shooting threes, but I guess i can live with that if they play defense as I fully expect them to. But I especially don't like the step back three.

Another minor thing that caught my attention was at the very end of the article. Ob says the power forward and small forward are basically interchangible - two thoughts immedietely come to mind.
1) that is very different from Carlisle, in his system the small forward and shooting guard were interchangible
2) Jeff won't be playing any power forward this season.

I expect to see Murphy, Granger and Shawne playing power forward with Jeff, Ike and JO being the center. Small ball in other words



http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070706/SPORTS04/707060433/1247/SPORTS&template=printart



Pacers rookie And free agent camp
Williams staying busy in offseason
By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com
July 6, 2007


Summer vacation?

It's been more like summer school for Indiana Pacers second-year forward Shawne Williams, who has had just two weeks off since the season ended almost three months ago.

Williams has made Conseco Fieldhouse his second home as he tries to build on an impressive ending to his rookie season.

Williams worked out with the Pacers coaching staff four days a week before rookie/free agent camp opened Thursday.

He spent the first part of the offseason with former coach Rick Carlisle's staff and team president Larry Bird.

Bird didn't waste words in his assessment.

"Larry made me shoot 100 free throws and told me not to think about shooting 3s," Williams said.

Things changed once Jim O'Brien was named coach in late May.
During their first day of workouts, O'Brien had Williams spot up and shoot 3-pointers.

"It wasn't pretty at first," Williams said, laughing. "I hadn't shot a 3 in four weeks. I was shooting air balls and overshooting the rim."

O'Brien expects the 3-pointer to be part of Williams' repertoire. He has had Williams, who shot 37 percent on 3-pointers last season, and Danny Granger concentrating on 3-point shooting in individual workouts.

The coach stopped a drill in practice Thursday after Williams shot a jumper just inside the 3-point line.

"He wants us to shoot the 3 and if we're that close to the line, we should take a step back and get the three points," Williams said.

Williams has noticed other differences between the two coaches.

O'Brien has a hands-on approach, spending a lot of time teaching and drilling instructions into the players' heads.

"He's not a screamer in practice," Williams said. "His voice is just loud and it carries. Rick was more laid back."

Williams spent the majority of the first half of his rookie season on the inactive list. He had one double-digit scoring game through the end of the March, when his playing time increased as the Pacers struggled down the stretch.

Williams played double-figure minutes in the final 11 games he appeared in. That stretch showed why Bird was so high on him in last year's draft. He had a career-high 19 points against New Jersey and played within the system.

"Last season helped my confidence, but that's an old season and I've got to do something this season to build my confidence back up," Williams said.

O'Brien said Williams, who played both forward positions before switching primarily to small forward last season, will be counted on in a variety of ways.

"All of our guys, preferably, will be able to face up," O'Brien said. "Everybody has to be multifaceted, so I would not really get caught up on the numbers. Our (small forwards) and (power forwards) are going to be asked to shoot 3s and handle the ball up top. They are interchangeable."

Evan_The_Dude
07-06-2007, 09:11 AM
On one hand I like the fact that he's a coach that isn't afraid of the three-pointer. On the other hand I feel that if a player spends too much time behind the three-point line, he get's used to that range and becomes a bit less accurate from the mid-range point. However I think Shawne has an excellent stroke, so I'm not worried about him spending too much time out there, as long as he's going to the basket at times too. Whatever happens, I think this coming season is going to be very fun to watch.

Smooth_for_Pres.
07-06-2007, 09:23 AM
So if are small forwards and power forwards are going to be asked to shoot from the arc so much, does that mean that our SG and PG are going to be asked to penetrate and shoot the pull up, mid range? This certainly would fall in line with LB's criticism of last season that we weren't getting through down low. It also fits Quis's style and makes Jamal not settle for quick pops at the beggining of the shot clock.

Trader Joe
07-06-2007, 09:28 AM
He hasn't shot a single three in FOUR weeks? He has to be kidding right? RIGHT?

avoidingtheclowns
07-06-2007, 09:29 AM
a few thoughts... danny and shawne proved they could shoot the 3 regularly - so i don't necessarily have a problem with this. i just definitely hope that danny doesn't float around the arc and starts driving to the basket like he did his rookie season. i think he needs both skills to be the great player we hope he'll become.

i really wish dunleavy was in indy working on shooting. it would certainly make me feel better about the upcoming season.

how much you wanna bet that o'brien encourages jeff to play the 4 and suddenly he becomes beast from behind the arc putting up kapono-like percentages. finally, jeff will find his offensive game.

naptownmenace
07-06-2007, 09:51 AM
how much you wanna bet that o'brien encourages jeff to play the 4 and suddenly he becomes beast from behind the arc putting up kapono-like percentages. finally, jeff will find his offensive game.

As long as he doesn't have Rodman's shooting form I'm okay with it.

bulldog
07-06-2007, 10:04 AM
Its funny to me that they have to say these kinds of things to NBA players. Every high school player has it drilled in their head that a long two-pointer is the worst shot in basketball. Lack of fundamentals, grumble, grumble, the NBA is ruining basketball, grumble, grumble, etc.

I always wonder how much better the best players in the world could be if they played 30 less games and had some real practice time, plus a dedicated and well-run developmental league for young guys to gain experience.

Anthem
07-06-2007, 10:19 AM
Its funny to me that they have to say these kinds of things to NBA players. Every high school player has it drilled in their head that a long two-pointer is the worst shot in basketball. Lack of fundamentals, grumble, grumble, the NBA is ruining basketball, grumble, grumble, etc.
I disagree with that, and always have. If you've got a good look at a long two, and that's where your range is at, then take it. Too many players feel like they HAVE to get a three, and so lose their chance to hit a shot they could actually make.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 10:25 AM
If we've got HS coaches teaching kids to step out of their range and that a long 2-pointer is the worst shot in basketball then somebody should take away their whistle and beat them upside the head with it.

If anything, the three-point line is too close and needs to be moved back to 28 feet (or more) to prevent stupid coaches from relying too heavily on it.

esabyrn333
07-06-2007, 10:26 AM
a few thoughts... danny and shawne proved they could shoot the 3 regularly - so i don't necessarily have a problem with this. i just definitely hope that danny doesn't float around the arc and starts driving to the basket like he did his rookie season. i think he needs both skills to be the great player we hope he'll become.

i really wish dunleavy was in indy working on shooting. it would certainly make me feel better about the upcoming season.

how much you wanna bet that o'brien encourages jeff to play the 4 and suddenly he becomes beast from behind the arc putting up kapono-like percentages. finally, jeff will find his offensive game.

Dunleavy has been in New York working with a shooting coach all summer to help increase his shooting percentage

Slick Pinkham
07-06-2007, 10:27 AM
Every high school player has it drilled in their head that a long two-pointer is the worst shot in basketball.

And all those coaches teaching that are full of baloney, usually.

It might be a terrible shot if you are shooting an 18 footer when you have range to 23 feet. But an awful lot of players at all levels are (or could be) automatic from mid-range even though they lack 3-point range.

Let's say I simply lack the ability to make 3-pointers consistently. I shoot them at a 15% rate. But I have perfected my mid-range game and can make a reasonably open 18-footer 50% of the time.

Should I pass up the 50% shot from 18 feet and take 2 steps back and launch a 15% shot from 23 feet?

You might think that this sort of situation is odd- making mid range and even deep-mid-range shots (16-20 feet) regularly but not extending out further. It's not. One of my favorite college players ever was Calbert Cheaney. He was automatic from 3 in college at the shorter distance. He went to the NBA and had a nice career but lacked range for the NBA 3 (career percentage <30%). He remained money from midrange. He needed a coach and a system that encouraged him to shoot the shots he can make. A 19-footer was a great shot for him. A 23-footer, even open, was not.

edit- while I was writing this long-winded rebuttle, others beat me to it!


I think Dunleavy might be a lot like Cheaney-- automatic from a certain range but not necessarily out beyond the NBA 3-point line.

bulldog
07-06-2007, 10:27 AM
I disagree with that, and always have. If you've got a good look at a long two, and that's where your range is at, then take it. Too many players feel like they HAVE to get a three, and so lose their chance to hit a shot they could actually make.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of most basketball people I've been around, if you're in position to take a twenty foot two pointer on offense, you were in the wrong place. When coaches yell "spacing," thats one of the things they mean.

If your range extends out to twenty feet, but not to the three point line, then
A) work on your range, its probably mental
B) in almost all cases it will be better if someone else takes a three or you put yourself in a position to take a closer shot (15 footer, etc.).

For example, even though he hits a twenty footer at an above average (though still poor) clip, I think Big Z really killed the Cavs in the Finals when he rolled off those picks. He could have hit a much higher percentage if he had just spaced a little closer, Tim D still would not have gotten back to him because they were all preoccupied with Bron.

Tom White
07-06-2007, 10:30 AM
Dunleavy has been in New York working with a shooting coach all summer to help increase his shooting percentage

That is the first I've heard of that. Where did you hear (or read) this?

Kegboy
07-06-2007, 10:33 AM
If we've got HS coaches teaching kids to step out of their range and that a long 2-pointer is the worst shot in basketball then somebody should take away their whistle and beat them upside the head with it.

If anything, the three-point line is too close and needs to be moved back to 28 feet (or more) to prevent stupid coaches from relying too heavily on it.

Along these lines, let's see what happens to the college game the season after next.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 10:39 AM
You might think that this sort of situation is odd- making mid range and even deep-mid-range shots (16-20 feet) regularly but not extending out further. It's not. One of my favorite college players ever was Calbert Cheaney. He was automatic from 3 in college at the shorter distance. He went to the NBA and had a nice career but lacked range for the NBA 3 (career percentage <30%). He remained money from midrange. He needed a coach and a system that encouraged him to shoot the shots he can make. A 19-footer was a great shot for him. A 23-footer, even open, was not.

The classic NBA example of this is Alex English. Deadly from 18 to 20 feet. Didn't even bother shooting three's because it was out of his range.

Remember growing up and playing "around the world" until you could hit a 12-footer all the time? And as you got bigger and stronger you'd take a step back. And eventually you could constantly hit every shot from inside of 18 feet. Nowadays, it seems we send the kids straight to the three-point line but we probably also lower the rim to 8 feet to help them make it.

Oneal07
07-06-2007, 10:54 AM
I thought the reaso Larry Bird got Williams was because of his shooting? He should b wokring on all aspects of his game

Evan_The_Dude
07-06-2007, 11:46 AM
In all fairness, when Larry drafted Shawne, he did say Shawne would play both forward positions. He said the same about Danny the year before. They both have the height (6'9") to pull it off. BUT, seeing as they're looking at Shawne at the PF position, that has to make you wonder what's going on with J.O. right about now...

Isaac
07-06-2007, 11:59 AM
Yeah, I hate that step back to shoot an out of rhythm 3 too. Just catch and rise up naturally, that's what you can knock down a high percentage. When you start taking steps back before you shoot it, that's unnatural.

Although, I was always taught to do that from 3rd grade through the end of high school. Every coach I had said the worst shot in basketball is a shot with your feet on the 3 point line.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 12:15 PM
Every coach I had said the worst shot in basketball is a shot with your feet on the 3 point line.

Won't dispute that comment. But the shot you take from one step inside the three point line is usually a pretty good shot.

Speed
07-06-2007, 12:17 PM
Dunleavy has been in New York working with a shooting coach all summer to help increase his shooting percentage


Now that is good news, I think he's a 39% shooting 3 pointer from being a very valuable piece to a good team. I think he'd become one of my favorite Pacers if he could do that.

esabyrn333
07-06-2007, 12:26 PM
That is the first I've heard of that. Where did you hear (or read) this?

I read it somewhere I am trying to find it.

Naptown_Seth
07-06-2007, 01:23 PM
The only thing I'm a little leery about is O'Brien's insistance on shooting threes, but I guess i can live with that if they play defense as I fully expect them to. But I especially don't like the step back three.

Another minor thing that caught my attention was at the very end of the article. Ob says the power forward and small forward are basically interchangible - two thoughts immedietely come to mind.
1) that is very different from Carlisle, in his system the small forward and shooting guard were interchangible
2) Jeff won't be playing any power forward this season.

I expect to see Murphy, Granger and Shawne playing power forward with Jeff, Ike and JO being the center. Small ball in other wordsIn other words, the Pacers post-brawl whenever JO was injured. And before you guys rush out to say "that was the good, up-tempo game", let me say that it certainly WAS NOT.

It was "pass around the arc, ball doesn't go more than 3 feet inside the arc, no penetration, time is almost up so I'll shoot the 3" ball. It was horrible. Back then while still at the Star I complained about their awful nights when the 3PAs ran close to 25-30.

They had lineups like this:
PG - AJ/Fred
SG - Fred/Reggie/Jack
SF - Reggie/Jack
PF - JJ
C - Dale/Foster

I doubt Rick liked it but with not a lot of inside scoring he appeared to go with the talent he had and just try to gamble his way into some wins. On the nights when guys were making shots it looked great. When the 3 was off it was a disaster.


Any doubts that might have lingered about the "Defend and Chuck" system being implemented were eliminated by this article. It did get Boston some solid seasons so I'm not saying it can't work. I'm just saying that it's not going to look like "good" basketball and that people that hated Rick's system better actually get used to more of the same in a lot of ways, ie weak offensive execution saved by defensive focus.

That is if JOB and Harter can get a caliber of defense from this current roster that Rick couldn't (despite getting it out of the post-Ron Pacers up till that point).


Now that is good news, I think he's a 39% shooting 3 pointer from being a very valuable piece to a good team. I think he'd become one of my favorite Pacers if he could do that.
Without a doubt. Look, you put some of Foster's defense and rebounding toughness into Troy and get Dun back to a 38% 3pt guy that can actually finish at the rim rather than just get there then you will have single-handedly turned this roster around. You give that to Rick, JOB or any coach and you have a MUCH better team.

Can that happen though? I hope so because despite my complaints about them my hope (and I think the Pacers') is pinned to the 2 of them improving their games dramatically. Otherwise expect more Spring 2007 this season.

Naptown_Seth
07-06-2007, 01:38 PM
I disagree with that, and always have. If you've got a good look at a long two, and that's where your range is at, then take it. Too many players feel like they HAVE to get a three, and so lose their chance to hit a shot they could actually make.
And to follow up on this and other similar comments, rhythm (also as mentioned) is the key, not the distance. You want to shoot in your comfort zone, and I don't mean distance. You want to touch the ball in a certain way that feels the same as every make you've ever had. If a curl at 16 feet is your thing then just do it.

I hate people that moan about JO or anyone taking a shot from "too far out". There is no such thing, there is only a shot that is outside your comfort zone. Either you broke rhythm to get it or you are too far out and are adjusting your shot in order to get the extra distance. Heck, some guys get uncomfortable if they get too close to the rim if it's not part of their game.

JO catch and shoot from the elbow where he flicks his feet forward in a semi-fade as he comes up the floor, that's a nice shot that you can see he likes. Same distance but from set or sometimes off the dribble, not as comfortable. I count on his baseline turn more than his step back jumper off a face up or his lane drive vs a triple team (which earned him his low 40s shooting I think).


I like the Alex English example, and it could be that this is Dunleavy at this point. If so I'm fine with that, I'll take 52% from 18 feet all day. Take that 100 times and you get 104 points. Compare that to 35% from 3, far better than he's been shooting the 3 the last few years.

FlavaDave
07-06-2007, 01:47 PM
I'll take 52% from 18 feet all day. Take that 100 times and you get 104 points. Compare that to 35% from 3.......

........and you get 105 points, one better. That's the point.

Most shooters shoot 40-50% from the field, let's go with 45% (that's generous because I'm not even taking out layups, which would put jump shot percentage closer to 40, but that also factors in 3pts so who knows)

Most shooters shoot 30-40% from three, let's go with 35%

Take 100 shots, you would get 90 points from two's and 105 points from three point range. If you won a game 105-90, you would have blown out the other team. Do you think professional basketball players can hit a third of their stepback three's? I can. You would have to shoot long twos at a 55% or higher clip to truly be a better shot that a three.

There is a reason why O'Brien is being paid millions of dollars to preach this theory.

pwee31
07-06-2007, 01:47 PM
Yeah, I hate that step back to shoot an out of rhythm 3 too. Just catch and rise up naturally, that's what you can knock down a high percentage. When you start taking steps back before you shoot it, that's unnatural.

Although, I was always taught to do that from 3rd grade through the end of high school. Every coach I had said the worst shot in basketball is a shot with your feet on the 3 point line.

I think some of you are taking this "step back" a little too literally or maybe not literally enough.

J'Ob is a fan of open and spot up 3 pointers. He's not wanting you to catch the ball in rhythm, then take a step back 3. He wants you to take that step back before you receive the ball.

He's pretty much just saying if you're going to be on the line or just in front, why not take a step back beforehand and get yourself in position to take a good 3pt shot instead of a long 2. We're not talking 18ft or so, we're talking foot on or right inside the line.

I don't really question J'Ob style. He brought the best of guys like Antoine Walker, Walter McCarthy, Tony Delk and Raef LaFrentz. Even Eric Williams and Battie were solid under J'Ob. Aside from Pierce, none of those guys have been as effective.

I don't care what you say, aside from Pierce, our roster is better then that roster. Delk is a better shooter, but I think Tinsley is a better PG, though a shooting backup PG would be nice. Granger is better (or should/could) be better then Walker. The same goes for Shawne or Dunleavy over McCarthy and Williams. Murphy is better then Raef.

This leaves us with JO instead of Pierce, and guys like Quis, Foster, Ike and Rush who haven't even been brought into the picture yet.

Though the fan in us wishes for more activity b/c other teams are making moves, and last season is fresh in our memories. A new coaching staff can bring a new life to playing basketball, so I want to at least see what this team can do under new direction before I start dishing out grades.

Folks are quickly to point out the skid last season, but don't like to take into affect the injuries to a number of players. The Pacers were like 6-1 after the trade b4 Quis got hurt, but hey we all see what we want to see I guess.

I just hate having the feeling that we're on a losing streak before the offseason has ended and the regular season has started

Speed
07-06-2007, 01:50 PM
Without a doubt. Look, you put some of Foster's defense and rebounding toughness into Troy and get Dun back to a 38% 3pt guy that can actually finish at the rim rather than just get there then you will have single-handedly turned this roster around. You give that to Rick, JOB or any coach and you have a MUCH better team.

Can that happen though? I hope so because despite my complaints about them my hope (and I think the Pacers') is pinned to the 2 of them improving their games dramatically. Otherwise expect more Spring 2007 this season.


I do not want to be Pollyanna either, but they both are clearly capable of those things. Dunleavy has shot it well a couple of times in his career 35, 37, 38, 28, 31. Murphy has been a double/double guy 3 of his 6 years in the league. Too, Ike has shown when given time he can produce, I would guess 14 and 6.5 are not unreasonable to think about in his 3rd season, like him or not, the numbers easily project to that. Also, Shawne is going to be better and I believe DG will continue his upward movement, even conservatively you could see 16 and 7. Anyway, numbers aside because that can be a trap in determining how good someone is playing, there is easily room to improve. Especially two 3rd year guys in DG and Ike who were highly thought of first rounders.

Since86
07-06-2007, 01:56 PM
I dunno if you're implying there's a problem between the two theories UB, with the thread title.

Bird didn't say "don't shoot three's." He told him to not think about shooting threes. Making him shoot 100 FTs a day sounds like he's fine tuning his shot, which in order to do you go back to basic fundamentals.

It looks more like he's telling him to work on the minor details, and the rest will fall in place.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 02:41 PM
........and you get 105 points, one better. That's the point.

Most shooters shoot 40-50% from the field, let's go with 45% (that's generous because I'm not even taking out layups, which would put jump shot percentage closer to 40, but that also factors in 3pts so who knows)

Most shooters shoot 30-40% from three, let's go with 35%

Take 100 shots, you would get 90 points from two's and 105 points from three point range. If you won a game 105-90, you would have blown out the other team. Do you think professional basketball players can hit a third of their stepback three's? I can. You would have to shoot long twos at a 55% or higher clip to truly be a better shot that a three.

There is a reason why O'Brien is being paid millions of dollars to preach this theory.

You're leaving out FTs. We did this analysis a little while ago and you'd have to shoot a lot better than 35% from outside the arc to "break even" in terms of points. And not many NBA players shoot > 35% from out there.

FlavaDave
07-06-2007, 02:53 PM
You're leaving out FTs. We did this analysis a little while ago and you'd have to shoot a lot better than 35% from outside the arc to "break even" in terms of points. And not many NBA players shoot > 35% from out there.


But free throws aren't really a factor in this case, because any NBA player would be benched for fouling a guy from 20 feet.

I'm attempting to compare long twos to three point shots, not just any field goals or midrange jumpers.

Still, if you can find that thread, I would probably find it interesting.

Slick Pinkham
07-06-2007, 02:58 PM
yes, as Jay said, a number of factors take away from the launching 3's ideas-

You draw fewer fouls, which means you get fewer free throws, fewer "and-ones", and also are unlikely to get any key members of the opposing team in foul trouble

The long rebounds are more likely to initiate fast break opportunities for the other team

I once saw a detailed analysis of this for the college game, back when "Pitino ball" came into play at Kentucky.

the statistical conclusion was that the break-even point, when these other factors were considered, is 39%.

That is, if you shoot over 39% from 3, you should be shooting more. If under, you should shoot them less.

Of course this is affected by what type of inside "2 point-oriented offense" you have. If you are really poor on twos then the break-even point is lower, and if really great then the break-even point is higher. I forget what efficiency was assumed in the study I'm remembering, which came up with the 39 as the magic number for desired 3-point shooting.

maybe the premise was what you would need to shoot from 3's to compare with shooting 50% on twos. The simple answer would be 33%, but theseother factors are quite important and bring up up to 39.

JayRedd
07-06-2007, 03:15 PM
O'Brien said Williams, who played both forward positions before switching primarily to small forward last season, will be counted on in a variety of ways.

"All of our guys, preferably, will be able to face up," O'Brien said. "Everybody has to be multifaceted, so I would not really get caught up on the numbers. Our (small forwards) and (power forwards) are going to be asked to shoot 3s and handle the ball up top. They are interchangeable."

This was exactly how he ran the Celtics. His PFs were Antoine, Rodney Rogers (who was a Sam Perkins-type sniper at the time), Eric Williams and Walter McCarty.

Spacing was the key to getting these guys good looks from three-point range. It wasn't exactly Mike D'Antoni, but like Phoenix of today, they always had an uncanny number of wide-open looks from the corner three (what Larry Bird used to call a "lay-up) as well as the wing on quick ball reversals, kick-outs from the post or drive-and-kicks. Kenny Anderson did a great job back then making sure defenders had to sag a little to cut down penetrating lanes and leaving the space for shooters. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Tins will be able to do the same.

Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.

This all adds up to one thing: These guys were getting good looks from the 3-pt line. Whether or not we can do the same thing without a back-court of Paul Pierce and Kenny Anderson remains to be seen (personally, I'm skeptical).

But on our roster, I think he sees a chance to return to that by playing Troy, Shawne, Ike and Dunleavy at the 4. Ike obviously won't be launching treys, but he used to spot of Rodney Rogers from about 18 feet on the baseline and I imagine Ike would be money from that spot.

Hicks
07-06-2007, 03:17 PM
This article does not definitively say that all we're doing to do is chuck. It certainly says the 3 will be heavily used, but it does not say "while the 3 and 4 stand around the arc, so do the 1 and 2". I predict there will be a lot of penetration to our offense as well; attacking the basket to kick out, if stopped, to an open shooter.

Everything I've read since we hired Jim tells me the idea is "shoot it if you're open, attack the basket if you're not". I'm perfectly fine with that. I expect him to use Tinsley and Marquis a lot in attacking the basket, and if they're doing that, it makes sense to have Danny and Shawne to kick it out to; they're both better shooters than those two anyway. If they kick it out and one of them is open, they fire. If they're not, they attack or pass. Nothing "chuckerific" about that.

I'll sure as hell take that kind of offense over last year's bore-fest as long as we're playing our asses off (in a smart system) on defense. And with Harter here I think we will.

pwee31
07-06-2007, 03:28 PM
This was exactly how he ran the Celtics. His PFs were Antoine, Rodney Rogers (who was a Sam Perkins-type sniper at the time), Eric Williams and Walter McCarty.

Spacing was the key to getting these guys good looks from three-point range. It wasn't exactly Mike D'Antoni, but like Phoenix of today, they always had an uncanny number of wide-open looks from the corner three (what Larry Bird used to call a "lay-up) as well as the wing on quick ball reversals, kick-outs from the post or drive-and-kicks. Kenny Anderson did a great job back then making sure defenders had to sag a little to cut down penetrating lanes and leaving the space for shooters. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Tins will be able to do the same.

Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.

This all adds up to one thing: These guys were getting good looks from the 3-pt line. Whether or not we can do the same thing without a back-court of Paul Pierce and Kenny Anderson remains to be seen (personally, I'm skeptical).

But on our roster, I think he sees a chance to return to that by playing Troy, Shawne, Ike and Dunleavy at the 4. Ike obviously won't be launching treys, but he used to spot of Rodney Rogers from about 18 feet on the baseline and I imagine Ike would be money from that spot.

WooHoo someone's backing me up :happydanc I had forgotten about Rogers and Erick Strickland. And thanks for finding the percentages. Those guys all had the best times of there career under J'Ob (aside from PP). Our talent level (at least name wise) should be better then those Celtic teams

Hicks
07-06-2007, 03:34 PM
Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.

I think this is extremely telling.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 03:56 PM
When we looked at this earlier this summer, using the Pacers FT% and FT rate from last season, I think the break-even point was closer to 41%.

I can't find the thread, but it wasn't that long ago.

I don't know how to make the Google search function do a search for "posts by user" like the old one did... IIRC, Seth and I were the ones discussing this.

Hicks
07-06-2007, 04:01 PM
If you want to argue attacking the basket vs. 3's, that's different than mid-range vs. 3's. You're not going to draw any more FT trips doing that than you are shooting 3's. Besides, I think Jim is going to tell people to drive if they're not open anyway, so it's moot.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 04:31 PM
You're assuming that someone shoots the same % from 18, 20 and even 22 feet as they do from 23'9".

I don't think that's true, at all.

Problem is, so few players are willing to even take the 18/20-footer anymore because the coach would rather have them miss a three-pointer than miss a two-pointer. Its probably true that, because nobody even practices at these distances, today's generation of players is as bad as shooting for 18' as they are from 23'9".

(Except for Rick Carlisle. He'd rather have the team dribble out out the 24 second clock than miss a shot. I kid... I kid...)

= = = = = = = = =

BTW, this is one of the biggest problems with American basketball over the past twenty years - no one can hit a mid-range jumpshot and since the defense knows you're only going to shoot from outside the arc or in the paint, they don't have to worry about guarding the whole court, just certain spots. And its not necessarily the players' fault because they are getting questionable into thinking this way, too.

Lastly, more defenders typically are in position to defend a 18' jumper than a 23'9" jumper and you do see guys get fouled all the time on midrange jumpshots. Its not a smart foul, but it happens.

Hicks
07-06-2007, 04:33 PM
Well, that's shifting the argument though and taking it back to the beginning were the final score was 105-90.

pwee31
07-06-2007, 04:37 PM
On a side note: I think Shawne and Kareem will turn out to be or clutch/last second shooters. JO couldn't do it. Jamaal got in the lane, but didn't finish most of the time. Granger was called upon a few times, but seemed to look nervous in those situations (could improve). Maybe Dunleavy or Quis can handle it or step up, but I see Shawne and Kareem being those guys in the final seconds to have the skill AND the confidence to knock it down.

JayRedd
07-06-2007, 04:38 PM
On a side note: I think Shawne and Kareem will turn out to be or clutch/last second shooters.

Let's see if he gets a roster spot first, okay.

pwee31
07-06-2007, 04:41 PM
Let's see if he gets a roster spot first, okay.

I'd say my assumption is quite reasonable compared to others I have come across. :-p

Hicks
07-06-2007, 05:10 PM
Shawne hit (especially for a rookie) a big shot @ Miami this season. I think he had at least one other time where he hit a 3 in that manner (time running out, and he drills it).

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 05:27 PM
Found it (finally, now I've got to get back to work. :blush: )

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31412&page=2



Reason why it works (using realistic team PCT):
34 * 3 = 102 points
48 * 2 = 96 points


How many four point plays or fouls on three-pointers did the team benefit from?

They took 5172 2-pt FGAs last season and attempted 2125 FTs (making . Let's be conservative and say that only 2/3 of those applied to two-point shots (loose ball fouls, etc.)

They shot a poor FT %, but if you add 1080 points to the 2391 made two-point shots, you get 5862 points instead of 4782 points.

So the right math is:
34 * 3 points per make = 102
46 * 2.45 points per make = 112.7



(Note: the original post in the link above uses 2005-06 data.)

Which makes the breakeven point 37.6% 3-point shooting (or 41.6% 2-point shooting, depending on your viewpoint.)

Using the 2005-06 data, you break even at 40% from behind the arc, and keep in mind the Pacers only hit 72% of their FTs that season, a higher FT% or higher 2FG% raises the breakeven point. (The breakeven point was lower in 2006-07 because the Pacers only hit 46% of their 2pt FGAs. Which is awful. No wonder we were dead last in shooting percent.)

(Since I already did the research before I realized I was using the 05-06 stats, I'll leave this in anyway...)

Only two teams in league history have hit 40% as a team from behind the arc - the 2000-01 SA Spurs, who only attempted 1094 3FGAs but had excellent shooters such as Kerr, Ferry, Elliott, and even Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, and Derek Anderson shooting >= 40%.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAS&lg=n&yr=2000

And the 03-04 Kings with Peja (they shot 1498 as a team and Peja's 43% was about 1/3 of their total attempts.)

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAC&lg=n&yr=2003

While I'm playing around with the stat searcher at basketball reference, the all-time leader in 3FGAs was Jim O'Brien's 02-03 Celtics and the #4 alltime 3FGA team was JOB's 01-02 Celtics. :shudder: (The 04-05 Sixers were only #42 all-time. Slackers.)

This scares me.

FlavaDave
07-06-2007, 06:02 PM
Found it (finally, now I've got to get back to work. :blush: )

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31412&page=2



(Note: the original post in the link above uses 2005-06 data.)

Which makes the breakeven point 37.6% 3-point shooting (or 41.6% 2-point shooting, depending on your viewpoint.)

Using the 2005-06 data, you break even at 40% from behind the arc, and keep in mind the Pacers only hit 72% of their FTs that season, a higher FT% or higher 2FG% raises the breakeven point. (The breakeven point was lower in 2006-07 because the Pacers only hit 46% of their 2pt FGAs. Which is awful. No wonder we were dead last in shooting percent.)

(Since I already did the research before I realized I was using the 05-06 stats, I'll leave this in anyway...)

Only two teams in league history have hit 40% as a team from behind the arc - the 2000-01 SA Spurs, who only attempted 1094 3FGAs but had excellent shooters such as Kerr, Ferry, Elliott, and even Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, and Derek Anderson shooting >= 40%.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAS&lg=n&yr=2000

And the 03-04 Kings with Peja (they shot 1498 as a team and Peja's 43% was about 1/3 of their total attempts.)

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAC&lg=n&yr=2003

While I'm playing around with the stat searcher at basketball reference, the all-time leader in 3FGAs was Jim O'Brien's 02-03 Celtics and the #4 alltime 3FGA team was JOB's 01-02 Celtics. :shudder: (The 04-05 Sixers were only #42 all-time. Slackers.)

This scares me.


But that's not what we are discussing. You would have to factor out layups, dunks, post play, and mid range jumpers before you got an accurate picture. The only thing we are talking about is long range 2pt shots (ie, 19+ feet) vs. 3pt shots. You very, very rarely see a foul that far out, so you can basically chuck out FT%.

Will Galen
07-06-2007, 06:29 PM
........and you get 105 points, one better. That's the point.



Laughing outloud!

I had just finished doing the math on that and wondered what Naps point was. Then I figured he didn't do the math. (grin)

I was about to point that out in a post when I figured someone else would catch that, so instead of posting I went ahead and read some more. The very next post pointed the math out and I still find it funny!

Stat man not checking his stats! (rofl)

OnlyPacersLeft
07-06-2007, 07:49 PM
SF's AND PF's? LOL I can just picture jermaine o'neal chucking from 3 pt land. He has enough trouble hitting from 15 out...

madison
07-06-2007, 08:24 PM
With the talent we currently have, the '3' is not a viable weapon to rely upon. JOB is setting himself up to be a one-year coach. I'm constantly amazed at how NBA coaches think. It seems like too often they have a 'system' and expect the players, regardless of their talent, to play within that system. Great coaches, like UCLA's Johnny Wooden, adapted the 'system' to the talent. JW won with small teams who pressed throughout the game and then turned around and kept on winning with teams built around a dominant big man. Obviously, JOB doesn't plan to be a great coach if he thinks he can force a poor-percentage group of players such as the current Pacers to play '3' ball. And, for what it's worth, '3' ball doesn't work even if you have Reggie Miller (which he does not). I'm losing interest in this franchise, rapidly.

Hicks
07-06-2007, 08:37 PM
Many of his Celtic players shot above their career averages while playing in his system. I'll give him some benefit of the doubt.

FlavaDave
07-06-2007, 08:52 PM
Can we, like, at least reserve judgment on O'Brien's philosophy until after we actually watch a game? Is that possible?

I for one won't make any judgments until 2008, minimum.

If you are already unsatisfied with the coach, then you clearly have no interest in giving him a fair chance.

Kegboy
07-06-2007, 09:27 PM
Can we, like, at least reserve judgment on O'Brien's philosophy until after we actually watch a game? Is that possible?

I for one won't make any judgments until 2008, minimum.

If you are already unsatisfied with the coach, then you clearly have no interest in giving him a fair chance.

So we're not allowed to judge him on his previous jobs? Everything he's said jives with what he ran in Boston and Philly.

If we're not supposed to talk about the coach until the games start, and we're not supposed to talk about the roster until the games start, then Hicks might as well close the Pacers board and we can all go hang out in the Shout Box.

Hicks
07-06-2007, 10:01 PM
I think that's a bit overreactive....

*realizes this quote will later be thrown in my face*

FlavaDave
07-06-2007, 10:09 PM
So we're not allowed to judge him on his previous jobs? Everything he's said jives with what he ran in Boston and Philly.

If we're not supposed to talk about the coach until the games start, and we're not supposed to talk about the roster until the games start, then Hicks might as well close the Pacers board and we can all go hang out in the Shout Box.


I was refering to the poster that said a) O'Brien is preaching 3-ball and will refuse to adapt his system at all, b) that this will never work for the Pacers, and c) he is losing all interest in the Pacers because of this. I should have quoted him.

Speculating about strategies and the effective of their strategies is exactly what PD seems to be about. Ripping a coach for what he is and isn't doing before he actually has done anything is a bit much, IMHO.


It was kind of an offhand comment anyway; I wouldn't read too much into it.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 10:40 PM
Who said that? I must've skimmed right past it.

I said back in T-bird's original JO'B thread that I thought JO'B was a good enough coach that he would adapt his gameplan to the players he had. I don't think he's a one-trick pony.

However, his Celtics teams DID rank #1 and #4 all-time at chucking up three pointers. And he's inherited the worst shooting team in the league. The Sixers didn't fire up the three as often, but way too often for my taste. And comments in today's article are scaring me.

Something's got to give, because this has all the makings of trying to force a square 2" peg into a round, 1/4" hole.

This team, as currently assembled, would be a below-average shooting team if the players all achieved career highs.

ChicagoJ
07-06-2007, 10:46 PM
But that's not what we are discussing. You would have to factor out layups, dunks, post play, and mid range jumpers before you got an accurate picture. The only thing we are talking about is long range 2pt shots (ie, 19+ feet) vs. 3pt shots. You very, very rarely see a foul that far out, so you can basically chuck out FT%.

Fine. I don't really care. The 20-footer is still a much, much better shot than the 23'9" shot.

The extra point you get for occasionally hitting a shot you shouldn't be taking in the first place because you're out of your range is not worth it.

And we only have one player on the current roster that should ever take a three-point shot, and that's Murphy.

I won't disput the "toe on the line" shot is a bad shot. But one step inside the arc is usually a great shot.

Eindar
07-06-2007, 11:55 PM
Found it (finally, now I've got to get back to work. :blush: )

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31412&page=2



(Note: the original post in the link above uses 2005-06 data.)

Which makes the breakeven point 37.6% 3-point shooting (or 41.6% 2-point shooting, depending on your viewpoint.)

Using the 2005-06 data, you break even at 40% from behind the arc, and keep in mind the Pacers only hit 72% of their FTs that season, a higher FT% or higher 2FG% raises the breakeven point. (The breakeven point was lower in 2006-07 because the Pacers only hit 46% of their 2pt FGAs. Which is awful. No wonder we were dead last in shooting percent.)

(Since I already did the research before I realized I was using the 05-06 stats, I'll leave this in anyway...)

Only two teams in league history have hit 40% as a team from behind the arc - the 2000-01 SA Spurs, who only attempted 1094 3FGAs but had excellent shooters such as Kerr, Ferry, Elliott, and even Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, and Derek Anderson shooting >= 40%.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAS&lg=n&yr=2000

And the 03-04 Kings with Peja (they shot 1498 as a team and Peja's 43% was about 1/3 of their total attempts.)

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAC&lg=n&yr=2003

While I'm playing around with the stat searcher at basketball reference, the all-time leader in 3FGAs was Jim O'Brien's 02-03 Celtics and the #4 alltime 3FGA team was JOB's 01-02 Celtics. :shudder: (The 04-05 Sixers were only #42 all-time. Slackers.)

This scares me.

Are these stats accurate? My understanding has always been that you don't get counted for a missed FG if you are fouled. This means that in that analysis, Free throw attempts are only earned on FGA's that aren't recorded as such. FGA's are basically only missed shots, and are basically not connected to FTA in any way. The only time you get credited with a FGA and also shoot free throws is if you make the shot.

While I certainly agree that attacking the basket will yield more free throws, this train of thought is flawed in that the two stats are very hard to corrolate, and also that the discussion is about long 2 vs. 3. Most free throws are earned on drives to the basket and post play.

pwee31
07-07-2007, 12:22 AM
Wow the tempers, pessimism, and bad sarcasm really come out in the offseason. i would hate to see some of you if the Pacers were a cellar dweller for awhile

Hicks
07-07-2007, 01:06 AM
Wow the tempers, pessimism, and bad sarcasm really come out in the offseason. i would hate to see some of you if the Pacers were a cellar dweller for awhile

I often wonder how some fans of this mold get enough joy or fun out of this to even bother.

Eindar
07-07-2007, 01:22 AM
I should also point out that I'm a huge fan of drawing fouls. The late '90s teams were great at getting other teams into foul trouble. In some ways, you can make your "defense" better if you can get one of their best players/scorers in foul trouble and force them to the bench. I think, more than anything, this is what made us, statistically speaking, a good defensive squad during that period.

CableKC
07-07-2007, 02:17 AM
Am I the only one concerned that we are one of the worst shooting teams in the league that is going to have an offense that emphasizes shooting behind the 3pt line?

I'm lost...have we acquired that shooter that Bird said that we were going to get?

Sorry.......Rush doesn't count in my book.

Eindar
07-07-2007, 06:28 AM
Am I the only one concerned that we are one of the worst shooting teams in the league that is going to have an offense that emphasizes shooting behind the 3pt line?

I'm lost...have we acquired that shooter that Bird said that we were going to get?

Sorry.......Rush doesn't count in my book.

I think the FG% might be a little misleading, due to how poorly we finish inside. I'm too lazy/busy right now, but is there a ranking for 3P%, and where do we rank there?

In all honesty, Murphy, Granger, and Williams are all solid three point shooters. Rush should be as well. Really, that's 4 guys who could shoot 40% for the season. Assuming Tinsley continues working on it, he could actually hit 35%, as long as he doesn't get injured and get rusty like most seasons. My main concern is what happens if Tinsley goes south and Marquis is in the game? We have a lot of lineup combinations where our only credible three point shooter is our center or PF/SF. In O'Brien's system, I think you really need 3 solid threats and a real slashing threat for it to work, and I'm not sure we can keep 3 on the floor at all times. Getting Mo Williams would really help, but I think he's going to want too much money.

EDIT: We tied for 15th in the league in 3P% according to ESPN at 35% (they have us at 22nd, but they don't give enough decimal places to verify it). That's not great, but it's not horrible either, and Shawne and Danny, and probably Dunleavy will improve this season in that regard, not to mention that upgrading from Rawle Marshall to Kareem Rush will help. I think it's a little concerning, but it's not the nightmare it looks like on first glance.

Naptown_Seth
07-07-2007, 12:56 PM
You're leaving out FTs. We did this analysis a little while ago and you'd have to shoot a lot better than 35% from outside the arc to "break even" in terms of points. And not many NBA players shoot > 35% from out there.
True, and you know I believe that which is why I run out the Points Per Shot so often. I was just being simplistic in this case, I was defending having Dun shoot the 52% 2pt shot, not attacking him for the lack of a 3 ball.

Drawing FTAs is a huge benefit because you not only score but you also pressure the defense toward foul concerns.

Last year early in the season I ran a chart of Danny's 3pt to 2pt attempt ratio compared to his total points scored. To no surprise the lower his 3/2 ratio was the better his scoring tended to be. Settling for 3PAs only is exactly that, settling. It's a great weapon but I hate the idea of an offense based soley around it.


I have concerns about the Bird disconnect with JOBs approach. I read into the "no 3s, just FTAs" is that they wanted to improve his game toward the rim and make sure he could make good on it. Then JOB came in and said forget that, let's bomb the hell out of the arena.

To me that fits much closer with the "out of nowhere" hiring of JOB after apparently courting several other coaches.



Mal, defend JOB's system all you want, but as I pointed out before his Boston team put up 2150 3PAs one season, which is about 700 more than the Pacers most (worst) ever, the afforementioned brawl season which featured 4 bombers on court at the same time quite often.

This isn't twisted numbers, JOB's teams have played that way, they did take all those shots that got counted up and turned into a magic 2100 number. Think about that number some more, 2100. That's nearly 26 per game. It was a full 1/3rd of their offense in 02-03.

Every third trip down court is a 3. Compare that to being 20% of the offense last year, one that featured Danny camping the arc early, Al bombing early on, Jackson taking too many, then Troy specializing in it when he came over. Of course since they were pretty poor as a 3pt team it was smart to limit how involved it was in the offense. Has this changed?

To meet the previous JOB standard it will mean that Danny will be taking 5-6 from the arc, Troy will shoot 5, Shawne will shoot 4, Dun will shoot 3, Rush (perhaps) will shoot 3, Tins will take 4, Quis will take 2...

I mean that's what 25 per looks like, it's not a fantasy, those twisted numbers come from some very real, tangible events. If you disliked Jackson taking 5 a night and Tins taking 3...


MAYBE JOB is different, but he has a history and the current comments, neither of which suggest something different. Why should a reasonable person expect some massive change out of nowhere?


The 04-05 Pacers team that shot so many 3s had a 36% FTA per FGA rate.
JOBs 02-03 Celtics - 31%

But somehow JOBs teams drive MORE than the "pass around the outiside" 04-05 Pacers team?

Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.02-03 - Team 2155 attempts, 33.4% makes
Pierce - 30.2%
Walker - 32.3%
McCarty - 36.7%
no Rogers, no Anderson, no Strickland

Walker the year before was not 36%, he was 34.4%. He took about EIGHT PER GAME at that 34% rate. Remind me what Jack's typical 3P% runs and then consider how mad fans got if he took 5-6 on his high volume nights, let alone 8 being his normal attempts. Delk shot 200+ at a 31% rate as well.

That ECF team "only" took 1946 attempts at a "nice" 36% rate. But their FTA/FGA rate was a poor 29%. That's 1.17 points per attempt that year. Last year the Pacers got 1.195 points per attempt. That's a team that was LAST in the NBA in FG% and they still were more productive than the Celtics "good" year on offense in terms of points per shot used.

Naptown_Seth
07-07-2007, 01:07 PM
Who said that? I must've skimmed right past it.

I said back in T-bird's original JO'B thread that I thought JO'B was a good enough coach that he would adapt his gameplan to the players he had. I don't think he's a one-trick pony.

However, his Celtics teams DID rank #1 and #4 all-time at chucking up three pointers. And he's inherited the worst shooting team in the league. The Sixers didn't fire up the three as often, but way too often for my taste. And comments in today's article are scaring me.

Something's got to give, because this has all the makings of trying to force a square 2" peg into a round, 1/4" hole.

This team, as currently assembled, would be a below-average shooting team if the players all achieved career highs.
Exactly. Look Mal, you can't get on us for analyzing the possibilities next year based on the past. There is a difference between EXPECTATIONS and HOPES.

You guys ripping about pessimissism and negative attitudes don't seem to understand this. Pull up the sunshiners post from last season, wasn't I there in the ugly end still hoping?

But it's not sunshining to ignore reality, that's denial. There is no benefit to having your head in the sand. In fact to me that's fake hope, pretending there are no problems at hand.

The reality is that if you went to Vegas and had them set the line on 3PA by Indy next year that the over/under would probably sit around 1700, maybe worse. I don't know if the W/L is already up, but I'm guessing the Pacers line falls around 35, also maybe worse.

That's the reality, that's the view from outside Pacers central. It's not wrong for us to be concerned with the reality that's creating those outside expectations.


I think most of us, certainly me, have also said that we expect better defense this year. Why? BECAUSE OF PRIOR HISTORY FOR JOB AND HARTER.

Tell you guys what, I'll talk Jay, JRedd, Kegoy, etc into joining me in pretending that the 3PA thing won't be an issue right after the "optimists" stop expecting Harter to improve the defense.

Just because he's done it in the past doesn't mean he will continue to do it here, I mean he'll work with what he has which is a fairly awful defensive team....right?


See, it's okay to expect the past history to mean something if it's a GOOD thing, but if it's a bad thing then it will probably change. Does that really seem like sound logic to you guys?


It MIGHT go different, it is sports and you never can tell, and I hope it goes very well for the Pacers. But I wouldn't put money on it right now.

Kegboy
07-07-2007, 01:09 PM
Seth, you're depressing the hell out of me.

ChicagoJ
07-07-2007, 03:10 PM
Are these stats accurate? My understanding has always been that you don't get counted for a missed FG if you are fouled. This means that in that analysis, Free throw attempts are only earned on FGA's that aren't recorded as such. FGA's are basically only missed shots, and are basically not connected to FTA in any way. The only time you get credited with a FGA and also shoot free throws is if you make the shot.

While I certainly agree that attacking the basket will yield more free throws, this train of thought is flawed in that the two stats are very hard to corrolate, and also that the discussion is about long 2 vs. 3. Most free throws are earned on drives to the basket and post play.

Its certainly not perfect, but that's why I'm counting it as points per make and not points per attempt because a missed shot with a foul in the act of shooting does not count as a shot attempt.

Regardless of its flaws, we can all agree that a foul on a three point attempt is exceptionally rare (only a few times per team per season). If you want to be conservative, remember I only credited 2/3 of the FTAs with 2pt FGAs and assumed 1/3 were due to loose ball fouls, technical fouls, whatever. Even if you drop that ratio, the breakeven point is still pretty high for 3FG% or pretty low for 2FG%.

ChicagoJ
07-07-2007, 03:13 PM
Seth, you're depressing the hell out of me.

Shouldn't you be reading your blackberry?

:devil:

Hicks
07-07-2007, 04:21 PM
People love to bring up the Celtics, while ignoring the Sixers.

JayRedd
07-07-2007, 04:33 PM
People love to bring up the Celtics, while ignoring the Sixers.

Agreed. You have to factor that in to your opinion of JO'B, IMO.

The main problems in Philly, from my admittedly uninterested at the time perspective, were a lack of buy-in from the players, and just having a roster full of the players that don't have the skills his offense requires.

Did I mention we were dead last in the NBA in FG% last season and he wants us to start taking more threes?

Yeah, this should work out wonderfully. :rolleyes:

Hicks
07-07-2007, 04:43 PM
Dead last in FG, but middle of the pack in 3pt fgs.

So many people have such little problem assuming Jim O'Brien is an idiot. It's amazing.

Kegboy
07-07-2007, 04:48 PM
Shouldn't you be reading your blackberry?

:devil:

Don't have it anymore. Don't know what I'm gonna do at the party.

grace
07-07-2007, 07:07 PM
Don't have it anymore. Don't know what I'm gonna do at the party.

You're going to tell me who Peck is talking about since I don't know who at least half of the Pacer players are.

CableKC
07-08-2007, 03:18 AM
True, and you know I believe that which is why I run out the Points Per Shot so often. I was just being simplistic in this case, I was defending having Dun shoot the 52% 2pt shot, not attacking him for the lack of a 3 ball.

Drawing FTAs is a huge benefit because you not only score but you also pressure the defense toward foul concerns.

Last year early in the season I ran a chart of Danny's 3pt to 2pt attempt ratio compared to his total points scored. To no surprise the lower his 3/2 ratio was the better his scoring tended to be. Settling for 3PAs only is exactly that, settling. It's a great weapon but I hate the idea of an offense based soley around it.


I have concerns about the Bird disconnect with JOBs approach. I read into the "no 3s, just FTAs" is that they wanted to improve his game toward the rim and make sure he could make good on it. Then JOB came in and said forget that, let's bomb the hell out of the arena.

To me that fits much closer with the "out of nowhere" hiring of JOB after apparently courting several other coaches.



Mal, defend JOB's system all you want, but as I pointed out before his Boston team put up 2150 3PAs one season, which is about 700 more than the Pacers most (worst) ever, the afforementioned brawl season which featured 4 bombers on court at the same time quite often.

This isn't twisted numbers, JOB's teams have played that way, they did take all those shots that got counted up and turned into a magic 2100 number. Think about that number some more, 2100. That's nearly 26 per game. It was a full 1/3rd of their offense in 02-03.

Every third trip down court is a 3. Compare that to being 20% of the offense last year, one that featured Danny camping the arc early, Al bombing early on, Jackson taking too many, then Troy specializing in it when he came over. Of course since they were pretty poor as a 3pt team it was smart to limit how involved it was in the offense. Has this changed?

To meet the previous JOB standard it will mean that Danny will be taking 5-6 from the arc, Troy will shoot 5, Shawne will shoot 4, Dun will shoot 3, Rush (perhaps) will shoot 3, Tins will take 4, Quis will take 2...

I mean that's what 25 per looks like, it's not a fantasy, those twisted numbers come from some very real, tangible events. If you disliked Jackson taking 5 a night and Tins taking 3...


MAYBE JOB is different, but he has a history and the current comments, neither of which suggest something different. Why should a reasonable person expect some massive change out of nowhere?


The 04-05 Pacers team that shot so many 3s had a 36% FTA per FGA rate.
JOBs 02-03 Celtics - 31%

But somehow JOBs teams drive MORE than the "pass around the outiside" 04-05 Pacers team?
02-03 - Team 2155 attempts, 33.4% makes
Pierce - 30.2%
Walker - 32.3%
McCarty - 36.7%
no Rogers, no Anderson, no Strickland

Walker the year before was not 36%, he was 34.4%. He took about EIGHT PER GAME at that 34% rate. Remind me what Jack's typical 3P% runs and then consider how mad fans got if he took 5-6 on his high volume nights, let alone 8 being his normal attempts. Delk shot 200+ at a 31% rate as well.

That ECF team "only" took 1946 attempts at a "nice" 36% rate. But their FTA/FGA rate was a poor 29%. That's 1.17 points per attempt that year. Last year the Pacers got 1.195 points per attempt. That's a team that was LAST in the NBA in FG% and they still were more productive than the Celtics "good" year on offense in terms of points per shot used.
I agree with many of the points that you and Jay bring up. I'm really concerned that we maybe trying to become something that we may not be best suited to be. Maybe we won't be taking as many 3pt shots as the JO'B Celtics.....or maybe we will fall somewhere between what the Celtics and Sixers did....but either way...we are going to be taking alot more 3pt shots that I am comfortable with given what the makeup of this team.

Eindar
07-08-2007, 03:54 AM
I agree with many of the points that you and Jay bring up. I'm really concerned that we maybe trying to become something that we may not be best suited to be. Maybe we won't be taking as many 3pt shots as the JO'B Celtics.....or maybe we will fall somewhere between what the Celtics and Sixers did....but either way...we are going to be taking alot more 3pt shots that I am comfortable with given what the makeup of this team.

Can you elaborate on this? Like I said before, Murphy, Granger, and Williams are in the category I'd call "good" 3 point shooters. If Dunleavy returns to form, he will join Kareem Rush in the "solid" 3 point shooter bracket.

Historically, if you look at those Celtics teams which were successful under O'Brien, I think you can put Pierce in the "good" category, and maybe McCarty and Walker squeeze into "solid" territory, but if you look at it that way, this squad is actually better suited for O'Brien ball than the team he coached in Boston. I think the main issue is that JO doesn't really fit into the style of play O'Brien played in Boston, and it's making people nervous that our max contract guy is going to be used to set picks and get rebounds in this offense.

It's funny, people were upset when we played a slow, plodding, methodical style, and now people are upset at the prospect of playing an unconventional uptempo style that this coach has had success with. If you're looking for the NBA to take paint remover to the three point line and force everyone to wear daisy dukes again, you're going to be waiting a long time. These days, you either try to play like the Suns, the Mavs, or the Spurs. Looks like we're trying to play like the Mavs, where we penetrate and dish for an open shot.

Considering his point guard skillset and ability to finish if not guarded tightly, I expect Marquis Daniels to flourish this year in the Paul Pierce role. I could see us occasionally running out a lineup of Daniels, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, and Murphy and trying to torch teams on the drive and dish game the Mavs were so successful with two seasons ago.

PaceBalls
07-08-2007, 05:26 AM
I often wonder how some fans of this mold get enough joy or fun out of this to even bother.


It's because we are hopelessly addicted, obsessed and deranged by all aspects of the Indiana Pacers.

Really, I love it when the boys are winning and we have a good team, but I am also intrigued by the business side of it all as well. It goes beyond just the game for me, and I think anyone who actually takes the time to read this thread would be in the same boat.

Naptown_Seth
07-08-2007, 06:31 AM
I think the FG% might be a little misleading, due to how poorly we finish inside. I'm too lazy/busy right now, but is there a ranking for 3P%, and where do we rank there?

EDIT: We tied for 15th in the league in 3P% according to ESPN at 35% (they have us at 22nd, but they don't give enough decimal places to verify it). That's not great, but it's not horrible either, and Shawne and Danny, and probably Dunleavy will improve this season in that regard, not to mention that upgrading from Rawle Marshall to Kareem Rush will help. I think it's a little concerning, but it's not the nightmare it looks like on first glance.
Indiana .346
Lakers .353
Minny .353
Cleveland .352
Sacto .350
Clips .348
Wash .348
NY .346
POR .346
PHI .345

So it looks like 22nd is about right.

One other thing, that's with Saras, Jack and Al. But what if McLeod, Dun and Troy were here the full season instead. I'll take out their shots and put in the missing ones from the GS players.

Doing that puts the Pacers at .341, which would have made them 27th out of 30 teams last year. They would have had 1233 attempts. Two of the teams still below them, Utah and Atlanta, took around 1000 attempts, less than the Pacers rate last year and certainly less than what might be expected under JOB.

Oh, and by the way Utah drafted the shooter Bird apparently wanted, Almond, so they are actually fixing their problem.



I don't assume he's an idiot. I guess you thought Rick was an idiot based on your comment. I mean apparently if you just think a coach and his schemes might be a bad fit with the current roster it means you think the coach is an idiot.

Do me a favor and own up on crap statements like that. If you can criticize ANYONE in the NBA or even fans without implying they are idiots then I'd like to have that right given to me as well, and I'm sure plenty of other posters would too.



BTW, Philly DID NOT GET TO THE ECF. The lost in 5 to DET and 3 of those losses were double digit. I didn't realize you wanted to lean on a WORSE example, but fine, we can play that way. They won 43 games. They "only" took 1453 3PAs at a 34.8% rate. ONLY ONE TEAM took more threes with a % lower than that, and that was Washington. The higher volume teams otherwise shot it better, and often MUCH better (PHX for example). And let me throw out the fact that they also gave up 99.9 PPG putting them around 18th I think, and they scored less than they allowed on the year despite being over .500.

A big factor in limiting the 3PAs was Iverson. Iverson took 27% of Philly's FGAs in total. By limiting his 3PAs to 18.5% (his career avg is 17.5% 3PA/FGA) of his total shots he limited how many attempts the team had in total. Even still AI took 338 at a 30.8% rate. That was the MOST he had taken since his rookie year.

Meanwhile the good part was Korver who dropped it at a 40.5% rate. No surprise there, he's a great shooter. But the problem is that 74.5% of his shots were from three. Yes, I said basically 75% of the time he shot the 3. The following year after JOB Korver shot only 57.5% of the time from 3 and his make rate went UP.

Who else shot the 3 for that team - Iggy and Green. Iggy took 142 at a 33% rate, Green shot 105 at a 28.6% rate. The previous year Green had taken 40 less attempts and had a higher 3P% (about 2% better). Iggy lowered his 3PA/FGA ratio the following year and raised his 3P%, his ratio has gone from 26% with JOB to 23% to 15.6% last year.

Consequently Iggy's FTAs per 100 minutes (easier to read this way) went from 7.8 with JOB to 18 last year. By cutting down his 3PA/FGA ratio he more than doubled the amount of free throws he gets.


So I don't really see how Philly makes the case for JOB's offense. His guys still shot abnormally more 3PAs per FGA and outside of one shooting ace it wasn't very good. As a team they were still poor for a high volume 3 ball team, and worst of all their ace shooter did NOTHING but camp the 3.

In fact let me make one other point about that Korver 75% thing. Reggie Miller only took 56% of his shots from 3 once, in 03-04 when he only took 594 shots total and let Ron, JO, Tins and Al be the offense. He was never above 50% any other time and in his prime from 87-94 he only went over 31% 1 time.

Oh, and Reggie typically kept his FTA per 100 minutes in the 16-20 range despite being a 3pt ace. So that plan for Korver couldn't be more different than how Reggie went about being the greatest 3pt shooter ever, despite Kyle shooting it so well. That's been the JOB style up to this point, and he just made a comment about having DG and Shawne do nothing but shoot 3s in practice. Not hard to connect the dots here.

Naptown_Seth
07-08-2007, 06:44 AM
Don't have it anymore. Don't know what I'm gonna do at the party.
I :blahblah: won't be there, you're in the clear. :)

Eindar
07-08-2007, 06:47 AM
Don't forget to take out Rawle Marshall since he won't be playing for us anymore and is irrelevant to your abridged "guys still on the team" stat. I think the same goes for Orien Greene as well.

Kegboy
07-08-2007, 08:49 AM
I :blahblah: won't be there, you're in the clear. :)

Yeah, but now I'll be the most negative person there, and all those sunshiners will gang up on me. :sad:

grace
07-08-2007, 10:02 AM
Yeah, but now I'll be the most negative person there, and all those sunshiners will gang up on me. :sad:

I find that hard to believe when a trader like me will be there.

Here's a question for Peck to pose at the party: Which is worse, negativity or apathy?

Robertmto
07-08-2007, 03:45 PM
Yeah, but now I'll be the most negative person there, and all those sunshiners will gang up on me. :sad:

I got your back.

Doug
07-08-2007, 04:58 PM
Can we, like, at least reserve judgment on O'Brien's philosophy until after we actually watch a game? Is that possible?

Agreed.

Me, I'm giving it 8 games into the season. If it's not working then, I want the offense changed and O'Brien fired. And I'll storm into my season ticket agent's office to demand it!

:-)

ChicagoJ
07-09-2007, 11:29 AM
:laugh: @ Doug.

Let's not forget, JO'B's 76ers team was #42 all time in 3FGAs.

They've been shooting the three-point shot for more than 25 seasons and there are substantially more than 20 NBA teams. Its not like JO'B's 76ers team was #420 all-time. They were still in the top 5% of teams all-time at attempting the three-point shot.

He's coached three full seasons, and he's been #1, #4 and #42 all time in 3FGAs for the team.

Now I certainly hope that his offense can add a few %points to Dunn, Granger, Tinsley, Murphy, etc. I just don't see Rush and Williams playing enough to make a difference. :twocents:

Fool
07-09-2007, 11:41 AM
Remember growing up and playing "around the world" until you could hit a 12-footer all the time? And as you got bigger and stronger you'd take a step back. And eventually you could constantly hit every shot from inside of 18 feet. Nowadays, it seems we send the kids straight to the three-point line but we probably also lower the rim to 8 feet to help them make it.


And we've leveled all those damn mountains too so they don't even walk up hill to and from school.

Robobtowncolt
07-09-2007, 11:44 AM
And we've leveled all those damn mountains too so they don't even walk up hill to and from school.

Global warming should take care of the 6 feet of snow for both walks, too.

Naptown_Seth
07-09-2007, 12:18 PM
He's coached three full seasons, and he's been #1, #4 and #42 all time in 3FGAs for the team.
Holy s***, I seriously had no idea that those were where his teams ranked for 3PA by a team, despite digging into some of the numbers. No wonder they look so outrageous.


Esabyrn makes a good point elsewhere that I will give to the JOB faithful, which by the way I don't understand since you have no more reason to be faithful than I would to be against him (which I'm not) at this point. His point is the buy-in from the players and the conditioning. You can get a lot out of just improved effort if that was the ultimate problem last year.

Before Quis got hurt they were playing well post-trade, so you have to wonder if that can make a difference too.

I 100% expect the defensive effort to be improved. The way they played PnR last year it couldn't get much worse. That could win some games that they were losing those final 3 months. I'm just not sure that means 41 wins though.



BTW, I'm most definitely not negative. I'm realistic. Do you guys really think the neutral parties will be expecting big things from the Pacers next year?? Sure it might go differently, but right now we are talking about EXPECTATIONS because that's all we have. Mine are for the players on the roster and the coaches to run true to their prior history. That's not a negative attitude.

The fact is that the current situation ON PAPER doesn't look very good. I'm down now for the same reason I was happy when they got Detlef or when they dumped Isiah for Rick or when Byron Scott joined the team.

If I'd been sitting at games last year thinking "get this team a coach that will bring out the 3pt talent going to waste" then I'd be thrilled right now. If this team had played .500 ball the final 3 months instead of 25 win ball I'd be a lot more excited too.

But I shouldn't have to apologize for not putting my head in the sand on those issues. They suck. I sure as heck don't like having to face them as a fan and I hope my fears go unrealized. So I'm not enjoying this or trying to be negative. I just am not a big fan of the other end of the spectrum either, blind optimism.

You give me a REASON to expect JOB to do things differently then I'll listen (per my Esabyrn comment above). But saying "ignore his history, ignore his comments about the Pacers practices, he'd have to be an idiot to have them shoot the 3 so much and he's not an idiot" is not a reasonable, logical counterpoint. You can't expect me to hear that and say "sure, that makes sense".