PDA

View Full Version : Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien



Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 02:01 PM
Warning: please do not take anything Unclebuck posts in this thread seriously - obviously he is joking



One of the very few interesting topics that came up during the forum party last night was about the Pacers offensive rebounding. I was surprised that many thought it would improve under Jim O'Brien's system - perhaps the theory is that well it can't be any worse than it was under Rick Carlisle. I was pretty emphatic about it not getting any better and I suggested it will probably get worse.

So I thought, well maybe I was wrong, so I did a little research and I have some bad news for those of you who hope the offffensive rebounding will get better. It won't, it will get worse (assuming OB plays the same system as he did in Boston and Philly) And I certianly think it will be the same.

O'Brien has coached 3 full NBA seasons and his teams were last in the whole NBA in offensive rebounding for 2 seasons and 2nd worse in the other season. That to me is enough of a trend to draw the conclusion that the Pacers offensive rebounding numbers will not get any better and likely will get worse. Pacers will likely be the worst offensive rebounding team in the NBA, if the trend continues.


The only rebounding stat that is worth anything is rebounding %.

In the 2002 season the Celtics were the worst offensive rebounding team in the NBA at .240. That means when the Celtics missed they rebounded their own miss 24% of the time. Interestingly enough during that same season Rick Carlisle's team in Detroit was the second worst in this category at .242

In the 2003 season the Celtics were last again, by a wide margin. at .235. The Pistons under Rick were 5th worst at .258

You might be saying, well maybe it was just the personnel in Boston. Not really, in Philly the Sixers under O'Brien were 2nd worst at .254. The Pacers that same season under Rick were 5th worst at .264


I hope I didn't lose you in all the numbers and yes I hate stats, but I fully expect the Pacers next season to be one of the very worst offensive rebounding teams in the NBA (that doesn't bother me, by the way). If they are any better than 2nd or 3rd worst I would be shocked.

And for those of you who hated the fact that under Rick the Pacers wouldn't send players to the offensive glass, instead worried about getting back on defense, you won't like what you are going to see for the next several seasons because it will be about the same or maybe even more so.

This is fine by me, in fact I agree with the strategy of not crashing the offensive boards, but I know many of you won't like it.

Los Angeles
07-15-2007, 02:05 PM
UB - how do you see Foster fitting in with this?

Kegboy
07-15-2007, 02:10 PM
Many = me.

And I based it not on scheme, but on the nightmares seared into my head of Boston beating us in '03, not with 3's, but with offensive rebounds. But then, UB and I have long disagreed with every single aspect of that series.

Kstat
07-15-2007, 02:10 PM
I disagree with that, UB.

The more long jumpers you take, but more chances for long rebounds, which are easier to offensively rebound.

That said, you'll be a much worse team in transition D, because the long rebounds you don't get will be easy fast break fodder.

Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 02:15 PM
UB - how do you see Foster fitting in with this?

This was also discussed last night. I see Jeff getting significantly fewer minutes. Jim O'Brien will not play a power forward who cannot shoot the ball from the outside (unless the center can really shoot). I fully expect to see Murphy, Williams and even Granger playing all the power forward minutes. Foster will back up the center. I cannot foresee a reasonable scenerio where two of the follwing list of players will be on the court at the same time. JO, Jeff, Ike, Harrison. Except for serious foul trouble or injury, one of the centers will be paired with one of the power forwards I listed earlier.

So I see Jeff struggling to get much playing time -- Unless JO is traded for guards, but right now, I would have to say JO will start at center, with Ike backing him up and Jeff will only get spot minutes or when they need a really good defender. Murphy and Williams will get the power forward minutes.

Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 02:17 PM
I disagree with that, UB.

The more long jumpers you take, but more chances for long rebounds, which are easier to offensively rebound.

That said, you'll be a much worse team in transition D, because the long rebounds you don't get will be easy fast break fodder.

I'd be willing to make a really large bet with you, the Pacers will be in the bottom 5 in offensive rebounding. A really large bet. Kstat, how can you explain away the team stats in my first post.

Kstat
07-15-2007, 02:21 PM
I'd be willing to make a really large bet with you, the Pacers will be in the bottom 5 in offensive rebounding. A really large bet. Kstat, how can you explain away the team stats in my first post.

Eric Willaims, Tony Battie, Vin Baker, Walter Mccarty, and Bruno Sundov...

Shade
07-15-2007, 02:24 PM
I disagree with that, UB.

The more long jumpers you take, but more chances for long rebounds, which are easier to offensively rebound.

That said, you'll be a much worse team in transition D, because the long rebounds you don't get will be easy fast break fodder.

Is that even possible?

Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 02:29 PM
Many = me.

And I based it not on scheme, but on the nightmares seared into my head of Boston beating us in '03, not with 3's, but with offensive rebounds. But then, UB and I have long disagreed with every single aspect of that series.

Once again I hate using stats to prove a point. But Kegboy, these stats might surprise you, they even surprised me.

I looked up the box scores from the 2003 series. Isiah's last season as coach.


McCarty got 6 offensive rebounds the whole series. here are the offensive rebounding numbers.

Game 1 - the Celts as a team got 9, McCarty got zero, the pacers got 11
Game 2 - the Celts as a team got 9, McCarty got 3, pacers got 8
Game 3 - Celts got 5, McCarty got 1, Pacers got 14
Game 4 - Celts got 10, McCarty got 1, pacers got 5
Game 5 - Celts got 9, McCarty got 0, Pacers got 17
Game 6 - Celts got 11, McCarty got 1, Pacers got 24.


Kegboy, you are probably remembering a few key ones that Walter got, but as far as overall he was a non-factor in the rebounding.

owl
07-15-2007, 02:29 PM
Jeff as center in this kind of offense will probably thrive as the center needs to be moving and grabbing long rebounds and getting put backs. This may
play into his strengths. Jeff starts and Bynum plays the rest of the minutes.
Assuming JO is traded.

Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 02:30 PM
Eric Willaims, Tony Battie, Vin Baker, Walter Mccarty, and Bruno Sundov...

OK, explain the Sixers numbers

Kstat
07-15-2007, 02:32 PM
OK, explain the Sixers numbers

They didn't take a lot of threes...\\Nobody other than korver and Iverson could shoot past 20 feet.

grace
07-15-2007, 02:33 PM
I thought my head was going to explode when everyone was saying they thought the offensive rebounding would improve. I was so busy trying not to scream "ARE YOU PEOPLE STU..." I didn't even hear UB say he didn't think it would get better.

Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 02:37 PM
They didn't take a lot of threes...\\Nobody other than korver and Iverson could shoot past 20 feet.

I'm really suprised you of all people would disagree with me on this issue, you saw the drastic difference in offensive rebonding numbers for the Pstons under Rick vs Larry Brown. That is probably about as stark a difference in systems as you can have and I think it proves that offensive rebounding is a result of coaching systems. Why do the Jazz lead the NBA almost every season in Ofensive rebounding - it isn't because of the players, it is because of the coaching system.

if Jerry Sloan were the Pacers coach this upcoming season, I would fully expect them to be in the top 5 in offensive rebounding

Kstat
07-15-2007, 02:39 PM
I'm really suprised you of all people would disagree with me on this issue, you saw the drastic difference in offensive rebonding numbers for the Pstons under Rick vs Larry Brown. That is probably about as stark a difference in systems as you can have and I think it proves that offensive rebounding is a result of coaching systems. Why do the Jazz lead the NBA almost every season in Ofensive rebounding - it isn't because of the players, it is because of the coaching system.

if Jerry Sloan were the Pacers coach this upcoming season, I would fully expect them to be in the top 5 in offensive rebounding

we were never discussing rick or Larry's philosophy, though.

We're discussing Obie's, and while I won't say I agree with his methods, his style really does lend itself well to long offensive rebounds.

The Hustler
07-15-2007, 02:42 PM
i personaly believe this is the biggest disadvantage to playing a 4 out 1 in offense. There just isnt anyone there to rebound inside when your on offense. Only one guy fighting against other bigs. I would have thought this was almost always the case

As for this offense suiting foster, i dont think it does at all. He just doesnt have to offensive game to be the centre on his own, nor the shooting. I like Foster, i like the set of skills he has, but this offense, imo doesnt really have a place that makes him very effective!

Hicks
07-15-2007, 02:52 PM
Once again I hate using stats to prove a point. But Kegboy, these stats might surprise you, they even surprised me.

I looked up the box scores from the 2003 series. Isiah's last season as coach.


McCarty got 6 offensive rebounds the whole series. here are the offensive rebounding numbers.

Game 1 - the Celts as a team got 9, McCarty got zero, the pacers got 11
Game 2 - the Celts as a team got 9, McCarty got 3, pacers got 8
Game 3 - Celts got 5, McCarty got 1, Pacers got 14
Game 4 - Celts got 10, McCarty got 1, pacers got 5
Game 5 - Celts got 9, McCarty got 0, Pacers got 17
Game 6 - Celts got 11, McCarty got 1, Pacers got 24.


Kegboy, you are probably remembering a few key ones that Walter got, but as far as overall he was a non-factor in the rebounding.

I don't think it's simply Walter grabbing the rebounds, I think I recall a lot of kick-outs to a wide-open Walter. Prossibly a good portion of those passes came off of offensive rebounds.

Tom White
07-15-2007, 02:58 PM
O'Brien has coached 3 full NBA seasons and his teams were last in the whole NBA in offensive rebounding for 2 seasons and 2nd worse in the other season.

How did those teams rank the season before JOB arrived, and the season after he left?

If those teams were better bafore AND after JOB, then that would go further toward proving your point about it being a function of the coach's philosophy.

Naptown_Seth
07-15-2007, 04:24 PM
Don't hate stats, all they are is someone counting up all the times some REAL THING actually happened. That's hella better than some fanboy saying "it SEEMED like they got a lot of their misses".


They spread the floor, they don't setup post position, they chuck bombs. BTW, do you know what happens to long rebounds that the defense gets? That's right, FAST BREAKS!

Weeeeeeeeee!

I look forward to 40% of the missed FGs starting in the hands of opposing guards blowing past Quis or Tins at midcourt as they backpeddle in defense.

Just have JO stay back on defense the entire game, at least then he can get a few blocks and charges taken. I mean seriously, JO is your best defender. How often is he going to be able to be involved in the defense if the possession starts on the run 15 feet ahead of him?

A team with great 3pt shooting 1-3 players who also are your elite defenders is great for this system. A team with no 3pt shooting outside the SF spot perhaps that is especially weak in backcourt defense...doesn't seem like a good matchup.

Hey, this is ON PAPER, you never know what the results will look like. But it's common sense to expect things to go more like they have than for them to suddenly be brand new and different.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Hey, I think I just found the new 2007-08 Pacers slogan. ;)

Naptown_Seth
07-15-2007, 04:30 PM
They didn't take a lot of threes...\\Nobody other than korver and Iverson could shoot past 20 feet.
Um, basically every player on the roster pushed toward a career high in attempts, or a high in 3PA/FGA rate. Korver took 75% of his total FGs from 3. The next year without JOB that dropped to around 55% and IIRC it fell to about 35% the season after that.

Someone else already pointed out that their 1500 or whatever it is 3PAs ranked something in the top 40-50 all-time in team attempts. Sure it's way better than the #1 and #4 rankings of the two Boston teams, but to say they "didn't take a lot of 3s". BS. Their TEAM 3PA/FGA ratio was high by NBA standards, and more so given their low make rate as a team.

Most teams that move into the 1400+ range of attempts actually shoot it closer to 40%, which is exactly why they love it. JOB teams shoot it regardless of ability, and that's part of the issue in question in all this.


Jay was the one who mentioned it in the "Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes..." thread. The 3PA numbers were extensively discussed in that thread. Jay's last comment on page 4...

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.

And here is my main Philly numbers posts from that thread. This includes a point about Korver's low FTAs in comparison to the FTAs a big 3pt shooter like Reggie Miller used to get.

BTW, Philly DID NOT GET TO THE ECF. The lost in 5 to DET and 3 of those losses were double digit. 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.

Smashed_Potato
07-15-2007, 06:29 PM
UB... so whats the point in getting O'Brien to coach the Pacers if he can't fix weaknesses but make them worse?

Unclebuck
07-15-2007, 09:47 PM
How did those teams rank the season before JOB arrived, and the season after he left?

If those teams were better bafore AND after JOB, then that would go further toward proving your point about it being a function of the coach's philosophy.

Difficult to do that for the Celtics, because OB coaches the previous season for about 50 games and then his final season he coached about 30 games.


But the Sixers stats do prove my point.

'04 - The Sixers were 15th best off rebounding team, .281
'05 - Sixers during OB's only season were the 2nd worst OR team at 2.54
'06 - Sixers improved to 8th worst OR team

Big Smooth
07-15-2007, 09:54 PM
Usually you figure three point attempts generate more offensive boards due to long rebounds and such. That and more fast breaks for the opponent as others have stated. So would the low offensive board #'s for JOB be systemic or more of a coincidence? Interesting.

Young
07-15-2007, 11:08 PM
I really don't like the philosophy of us taking a lot of 3s. It's dumb and not hard to see.

However we will take a lot of 3s and that means long offensive rebounds.

But I think the reason OBs teams don't rebound well on offense is he doesn't want to give up fast break points.

I think the more interesting thing would be to see how many fast break points his teams, and the Pacers when Dick Harter was Bird's assistant, gave up. To me we are sacraficing one for the other.

avoidingtheclowns
07-15-2007, 11:30 PM
UB... so whats the point in getting O'Brien to coach the Pacers if he can't fix weaknesses but make them worse?

well he fixes a few of the problems ... just not offensive rebounds. he likes to focus on defense w/ harter which was quite necessary. also making the offense a little more life-like and less predictable (jacking up threes at random times would certainly make it more interesting to watch).

there are two big problems still with the JO'B hire: we lack amazing three point shooters and the offensive rebounding.

Naptown_Seth
07-16-2007, 04:42 AM
I really don't like the philosophy of us taking a lot of 3s. It's dumb and not hard to see.

However we will take a lot of 3s and that means long offensive rebounds.

But I think the reason OBs teams don't rebound well on offense is he doesn't want to give up fast break points.

I think the more interesting thing would be to see how many fast break points his teams, and the Pacers when Dick Harter was Bird's assistant, gave up. To me we are sacraficing one for the other.
Interesting point. That could very well be considering his defensive mindset.

I will say that this is a prime reason to keep and play Foster. A 34% 3pt shot isn't all that great, but if you get a 2nd look after those misses you end up with a 56% completion rate per possession (you hit 34% of the 66% misses you rebound) without getting a 3rd chance if you miss the 2nd.

That would put you at 60% OR rate which is not obtainable (you get all of the original 66% misses, you then lose all of the 66% 2nd chances which only happen 44% of the time roughly, due to there being some made shots too).

Let's say they can get it to 30% OR rate with a 34% 3P%. This sounds a bit confusing but I simplified it a little. Let's say they still NEVER get a 3rd rebound (after a 2nd miss that is), to be a 30% OR team they'd have to get 38% of the first misses if they were shooting 34%.

That gives them a make rate per trip of 42.5%, and at a 1.5 times payoff (3 points instead of 2) you are scoring at an adjusted rate of nearly 64%.

The good news is that if I make that initial rebound rate 30% it drops the overall OR rate to 25%, but that still leaves them with an adjusted make rate of 61%, it doesn't really hurt them that much.

A concern here is Points per Shot because 3pt shooting teams don't draw many free throws. As pointed out Korver taking 75% of his shots from 3 was only going to the line about 6 times every 100 FGAs.

Without FTs this 25% OR with 34% shooting comes out to a PPS of 1.02 which is freaking horrible. 122 points out of every 120 shots roughly. If I'm nice and assume a better rate than Korver despite only taking 3s, say 10 FTAs per 100 FGAs, and give it a 75% FT rate, you get the points up to a still terrible 1.095 PPS. Ugh.

Not enough FTAs per game (12 basically), and that's due to a 100% 3PAs approach which is not what they will do of course. This is just a jumping off point on how well the 3pt approach works, looking at the strategy of getting extra bang per attempt.

BTW, let's say the team still rebounds at 25% but makes 36% of it's 3s. Now you are at a 1.15 PPS after FTAs are added (at the low 10% of FGAs rate that 3pt shots get roughly). Move it to 38% and you are at 1.215 which is at the lower end but is at least in the ballpark.


To validate the low FTA expectation I looked at every team last year by 3PA/FGA rate and how many FTAs they got. 2 of the 3 FEWEST FTA teams were PHX and HOU, and they were the top 2 highest 3PA/FGA rate teams in the NBA (both at roughly 29% of their shots from 3). The Warriors were 3rd at 28% and fell mid-pack in FTAs per.

However of the 6 teams with a 17% 3PA/FGA rate or lower, 4 of them were in the top 10 in FTAs per game.

There is good news. While PPS tended to go with points scored, so did a higher 3PA/FGA rate. So a chucking team can score a lot of points which makes it sound like decent idea after all. But then you see the other end of the court and teams with the highest 3/FG ratios tended to be the teams giving up 100 points per game. Houston and SA are the main exceptions to that.


Right now then I guess the team we hope the Pacers most emulate is Houston. Of course they have Yao and while they were one of the worst offensive rebound % teams last year they led the league in defensive rebounding %. Not sure the Pacers can defend and deny offensive rebounds as well as Houston. But it does make the "Houston has 5 PGs" a more interesting discussion. :)

BTW, Houston shot the 3 at a 37% pace and SA shot it at 38%. It's a great weapon but you can't get away with shooting it like the Pacers have in recent years.

Unclebuck
07-16-2007, 08:05 AM
.

But I think the reason OBs teams don't rebound well on offense is he doesn't want to give up fast break points.

I think the more interesting thing would be to see how many fast break points his teams, and the Pacers when Dick Harter was Bird's assistant, gave up. To me we are sacraficing one for the other.



That is exactly right. The reason why Ob's teams don't get a lot of OR's is because of wanting to get back on defense. Not sure why almost everyone in this thread is fixating on the number of threes being taken and the long rebound thing. Getting back on defense will be emphasized, and another reason why we won't O rebound well is because of the position of our offensive players. 4 of them will be far away from the basket, with likely only one post up player inside, the middle will be much more open.

A big reason why Jerry Sloans teams offensive rebound well (So Do Phil Jackson teams) is because of the positioning of the offensive players and the ballanced attack that includes a lot of player and ball movement.

If you watch the Spurs play the Suns - it is incredible how well the Spurs stop the Suns fastbreak - but it isn't by accident and it certainly isn't because they get offensive rebounds - it is because they sprint back on defense and sacrifice offensive rebounding almost entirely. As soon as the Spurs take a shot, the Spurs players turn into defenders, looking to match up and get back.


Going off on a tangent a little bit. The style of defense the Pacers will play next season is very different from what the Pacers played the last time Dick Harter was a Pacers assistant. In Boston and Philly and I think partially because of the new zone rules and perhaps because of Jim O'Brien's influence, Harter changed his defense. In fact I commented at the time that the Celtics more than any other team took advantage of the new zone rules. Harter's defense floods the strong side of the ball, blitzes pick and rolls, stops penetration as soon as it starts at all costs, and swarms the low post.

We won't see poor Troy Murphy trying to defend Sheed all alone on an island like we did last season. We won't see point guard after point guard getting all the way to the basket where we can only hope and pray JO blocks the shot - that penetration will be stopped well before he gets to JO. Teams will beat us with open shots on the weak side and we will force teams role players to hit shots. Smart, patient and very good passing teams will give us fits. Our defense will get strung out as we run around trying to get to the weakside shooters. But teams that don't pass well or teams that have only 2 or 3 good offensive players on the court - will struggle against our defense

The Hustler
07-16-2007, 08:34 AM
Great Post Seth ... i dread to think how long that took!

Very interesting numbers, as far as i can tell you are concluding that PPS from 3pt shots are less than the points PPS from 2 point range.

Your post has got me thinking about 3pt shooting and points scored in relation ... the first thing that struck me when i had a look through some stats, in games the pacers won last year we shot 37% from 3 pt ... but in games we lost we shot 32.8% from 3 .... in those wins we had 17.5 3pt attempts per game and 16.5 attempts in loses! .... Shot attempts per game was the same ... 80 attempts per game .... so in our wins we had 1.28 points per attempt but in loses 1.13 points per attempt ...We also shot 5 % better in wins (46%/41%) ... in wins we had just 2 extra Free Throw attempts

So between our wins and loses there was very little difference between 3pt attempts or field goal attempts or even Free Throw attempts ... the main difference was in our %shooting both from 3pt and from normal Field Goals ...

Next question is to ask why? .... did we simply get hot in those games, or did we get better shots, more open shots ....

There was a Large difference in Transition baskets ... this is most likely fueled by the defence ... in wins we had on asverage 2 extra Steels and 1.3 extra blocks per game ... we also averaged 4 more assists which would imply that our ball movement got us better shots...

The problem is, we cant really get definitive results and statistics due to other factors ... e.g. the trade, injuries etc. .... still makes for interesting discussion!


EDIT: Sorry having read UBs post i realise this is also of the topic of rebounding! ...I appoligise!

Just to add rebounding in there ... Last year in wins we averaged 1.5 extra offensive boards and just under 5 extra boards per game ... interestingly though, they did not translate into aditional shot attempts at all!

Tom White
07-16-2007, 11:03 AM
A concern here is Points per Shot

I think I would be more concerned with points per possession than points per shot.

Kegboy
09-07-2007, 04:09 PM
Jimmy obviously never read this thread:

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


Question for Jim O'Brien | Sept. 7, 2007

<HR>Q. I have never felt we have had great rebounding teams but the last few years seem to be worse than usual. Do you have any thoughts on how you might go about helping this area? (From Dave in Logansport, Ind.)
A. I'd be very shocked if we weren't one of the better rebounding teams in the league. I think we're going to be long, we're going to be big at the wing spots, Jermaine's a strong rebounder, Ike Diogu's strong, Foster's strong. I think we can be a real factor on the offensive glass and we will not take too kindly to giving up second shots. It's always a point of emphasis and I think we're positioned to be a pretty darned good rebounding team.

Unclebuck
09-07-2007, 04:20 PM
Jimmy obviously never read this thread:

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

Yeh, who was the bozo who started this thread - seems like a know it all to me - a know-it-all who is often wrong.

Defensive rebounding will be very much an emphasis with Harter and OB - we'll see about the offensive rebounding though.

Arcadian
09-07-2007, 04:35 PM
From that quote it sounds like he's planning to play a combo or Foster/OJ/Ike at the 4/5 rather than going small at the 4.

Combined with that and the rumor that JO has been shooting 100 3 pointers will he be given the green light to shoot outside?

Naptown_Seth
09-07-2007, 05:47 PM
So much for Foster's demise.

However this is still off-season, no accountability-speak. JOB's teams haven't rebounded well and I'm not sure when the Pacers became long and strong, unless that's the Diener impact.

Granger is a decent rebounder certainly, JO is solid, Foster is a beast. But I'm not sure that's enough and that the strong rebounding it would take to be one of the best teams in the NBA is on this roster.

Plus didn't we already go through the whole "get back on transition after long 3pt misses" vs "crash the boards"? No one, not even John Wooden, could get a team to do both at the same time. Not unless they invented a teleporter.

Given JOB's views on the 3pt shot and defense, as well as the stats on those aspects and rebounding, I don't see where anyone made a big stretch to assume rebounding would be sacrificed in order to deny easy transition scores. Fine by me.

JayRedd
09-07-2007, 05:59 PM
it sounds like he's planning to play a combo or Foster/OJ/Ike at the 4/5 rather than going small at the 4.

Yes, he's a undisputed Hall of Famer, and yes, he might even have a few good years left...but I really can't see the Juice giving up his search for the real killers just to join an overcrowded front court on a marginal playoff contender in the East. Although, he could get us some good PR as one of the few guys we've had in recent years to actually be found innocent.

Kegboy
09-07-2007, 08:54 PM
:blush:

Arcadian
09-07-2007, 09:23 PM
Yes, he's a undisputed Hall of Famer, and yes, he might even have a few good years left...but I really can't see the Juice giving up his search for the real killers just to join an overcrowded front court on a marginal playoff contender in the East. Although, he could get us some good PR as one of the few guys we've had in recent years to actually be found innocent.

He's the slasher we need. He'll fit this system like a glove.

When I served jury duty, Judge Ito gave the perspective jurors a pep talk.

tmhorn15
09-07-2007, 10:49 PM
Yes, he's a undisputed Hall of Famer, and yes, he might even have a few good years left...but I really can't see the Juice giving up his search for the real killers just to join an overcrowded front court on a marginal playoff contender in the East. Although, he could get us some good PR as one of the few guys we've had in recent years to actually be found innocent.

:laugh:

Young
09-07-2007, 11:24 PM
Well I guess i'll say this Jim hasn't had a post player like Jermaine. We do have players capable of rebounding, probably more than any of his other teams. Maybe Jim feels we have a team that can get rebounds, and that we don't have to hustle back on defense after every shot since we will have guys capable of getting the offensive rebound.

GrangerRanger
09-08-2007, 12:06 AM
Good assumption Uncle Buck. Though I still think we'll be better then what your predicting. Troy Murphy was a beast in Golden State a few years ago on the offensive glass, maybe if he steps up his game to grab those boards (if he's not popping j's in the eyes of defenders), then we can be in the top 20? Or at least on the outside looking in?

Naptown_Seth
09-08-2007, 12:19 PM
Rommie, that is true. While JOB has for the most part stuck to his company line regarding strategy, he might adjust some aspects in order to make more of the current talent distribution he has. Obviously he does want to shoot it and Rush/Diener tell us that, along with his words.

However, once camp hits it could very well be that JOB learns some new strategies as well.

As a big Rick fan let me say this, he didn't put Mark Jackson in the post nearly as much in 98 as he did in 2000. He (and Larry/Harter) were figuring out their talent too and as they spent more time with the roster and saw what did and didn't work they adjusted and invented and created even more efficient attacks.


For some reason Mal has this attitude that anyone that considers JOB's methods a mismatch with this roster thinks that JOB is an idiot. It's not close to being true.

What we think is that JOB was hired BECAUSE HE'S JOB and not some other coach with some other style of play/coaching. So that means TPTB like how his teams HAVE played and must like the idea of the Pacers going that way. So it's right to expect that.

But any winning coach, and JOB is just that so far, will also adjust as it is needed. Bird might want the 2000 bombs Celtics but in the end JOB might find himself creating a new hybrid of his previous style, one that accounts for how he likes to play AND what this roster can do.


I've said tons of times, I'm CURIOUS about this season. This is one of the main reasons. Adjustments from NOV to FEB could be very interesting. The team might not be any good to begin with but as a group they might start to figure some things out and do stuff none of them expected by mid-season.

I know what to expect that first week of the season, I have no idea what things are going to look like in March.

Pacerized
09-08-2007, 07:06 PM
Well I guess i'll say this Jim hasn't had a post player like Jermaine. We do have players capable of rebounding, probably more than any of his other teams. Maybe Jim feels we have a team that can get rebounds, and that we don't have to hustle back on defense after every shot since we will have guys capable of getting the offensive rebound.

I agree:
JOB has said that he wants his best players taking more of the shots. His record indicates that he'll want more outside shooting. Unfortunately our best players are not shooters. Something will have to give, and I think we'll see major adjustments to what he's done in the past.

imawhat
09-08-2007, 07:13 PM
So much for Foster's demise.

However this is still off-season, no accountability-speak. JOB's teams haven't rebounded well and I'm not sure when the Pacers became long and strong, unless that's the Diener impact.


"we're going to be big at the wing spots"-O'Brien

I would take Jim's quotes as a precursor to who he sees playing where, offensively...both in terms of having four wing players and in position changes. So technically, Murphy is a big wing player. And as much as I hate his attitude about rebounding, his rebounding strength is swooping in.

Not that it's much different from how Rick used him, and I'm still perplexed as to how he sees this year being different from our squad last year, with the exception of the offensive rebounds that are created as a result of dribble penetration and defensive breakdowns. He may have a point (if we can shoot better from the outside).

More interestingly, I'm surprised he mentioned Diogu second.

wintermute
09-08-2007, 11:37 PM
More interestingly, I'm surprised he mentioned Diogu second.

heck, i'm surprised that both ike and foster got mentioned. from what we've been speculating, those two were going to combine for ~15 min a game.

troy as a big wing player is not really a surprise, but maybe j.o. is going to play at the wing too?? thus accounting for his taking 3-pointers in practice. a bit far out, i admit, but certainly j.o. is more suitable for that role than ike or jeff.

i guess we'll all find out in november...

Dr. Goldfoot
09-09-2007, 01:08 AM
Jimmy obviously never read this thread:

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


Technically, in his full seasons ( 2 w/ Bos and 1 w/ Philly) his teams ranked 4th,10th and 6th in overall rebounding according to the "four factors" sections on basketball reference.

Naptown_Seth
09-10-2007, 11:15 PM
Technically, in his full seasons ( 2 w/ Bos and 1 w/ Philly) his teams ranked 4th,10th and 6th in overall rebounding according to the "four factors" sections on basketball reference.
No, you've misread it. You've listed the DEFENSIVE ONLY ranking, not the overall. And not only that, but this discussion was about offensive rebounding specifically.

BBall Reference offensive rebounding rankings for his 3 full seasons
29th, 29th, 29th

Just for the heck of it his 2 half seasons were 28th and 26th.

At least his teams have been consistant. They miss a lot of shots and they make almost no attempt to do anything about it. If Foster can maintain his offensive boards per minute rate in this system it'll be a minor miracle....unless JOB makes a MAJOR change in his system.

Dr. Goldfoot
09-10-2007, 11:44 PM
I stand corrected.


My point was still , in that quote, JOB was responding to a question that indicated neither offensive nor defensive rebounding. I'll concede I didn't make that point very clear.

Kegboy
10-21-2007, 10:29 AM
:bump:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/SPORTS04/710210430



Rebounding is another story. The Pacers led the NBA in pre-season play heading into Saturday's play, outrebounding opponents by an average of 54-45.

They also ranked first in offensive rebounds, averaging more than 18 per game -- a number boosted by their poor shooting.

"I'd like to stay toward the top of the league," said O'Brien, whose team had controlled the boards in every preseason game before Saturday.

"We're not going to average 18 offensive rebounds during the regular season, but the fact we're crashing the boards hard and limiting other teams is good."

Unclebuck
10-21-2007, 12:34 PM
:bump:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/SPORTS04/710210430

I read that this morning and immediately thought of this thread.

Anyone else ever regret starting a particular thread. Luckily though no one ever bumps old threads and certainly no one would ever rub someone's nose in it.

I have been impressed by the rebounding - not the rebopunding stats but what I've actually seen in person - the Pacers are gang rebounding and are very aggressive - but if I had to use one word to sum up the first 3 weeks of training camp/preseason - aggression would be the word

JayRedd
10-21-2007, 01:07 PM
This is all great, and I'm not trying to say we're not going to be a good rebounding team.....

But rebounding is 50% effort...and offensive rebounding even more so with a lot of strategy (get back on D or crash the offensive glass) added in.

And given our team (new coach, 2-3 starting spots up for grabs, completely undetermined rotation, lots of young guys, etc.) there are a lot of reasons why we're trying harder for boards/loose balls than our opponents, some of which have guys coming back from serious injuries (New Orleans) and/or have much better continuity from last year (Chicago).

And, yes, Minny/Seattle are in similar situations to us, but they are also maybe the two worst teams in the NBA.

So this is great, I hope it can continue, and we may indeed be a very good rebounding squad -- offensively and otherwise.

But let's not get too too excited about preseason stats. We're not aveaging 18 offensive boards per in the Regular Season. Nobody averaged more than 12.7 last year per game, and 26 of the 30 NBA teams averaging somewhere between 10 and 12.7 per.

I'm not a mathmatician, but my guess is we wind up in that pack somewhere.

Naptown_Seth
10-22-2007, 02:53 PM
Yeh, who was the bozo who started this thread - seems like a know it all to me - a know-it-all who is often wrong.

Defensive rebounding will be very much an emphasis with Harter and OB - we'll see about the offensive rebounding though.
It's fair to ask questions given his history, and I wouldn't just take his word on it that it will all work out either. ;)

But perhaps in his counterpoint is something that we already brought up - new players. It could be that with a guy like Foster on the team, paired with JO, Troy and perhaps Ike and David (not a great board guy up till now though), then bringing in SG/SF types like Granger and Dun who have been decent rebounders partly due to playing out of position at times, JOB just has a roster much more built for rebounding.

Will he adjust toward that, is that what he has been going for, or does he just think it's going to be better thanks to the players.


It has been surprisingly good in the preseason, though you also have this...

They also ranked first in offensive rebounds, averaging more than 18 per game -- a number boosted by their poor shooting.When you run sub 40% from the field you better be getting 15-18 o-boards.

However in fairness I have run and posted the REB PCT and the Pacers have been winning AT BOTH ENDS (meaning I have been wrong about the offensive rebounding) until the Chicago game.

Trend or matchups or just chance? Obviously we analyzed JOB on his previous REGULAR seasons, not preseasons. So let's just see and hope that as the team adjusts it keeps the rebounding and just changes (improves) the FG%, rather than vice versa. ;)

Naptown_Seth
10-22-2007, 02:57 PM
This is all great, and I'm not trying to say we're not going to be a good rebounding team.....
...
I'm not a mathmatician, but my guess is we wind up in that pack somewhere.
And actually the Pacers weren't that bad in offensive rebounding last year, at least in raw numbers. So it's not really like it needs to be fixed as much as the commentary/questioning during the interview with JOB implied. I think 12.0 last year and 7th in the NBA, something like that. Of course there were a lot of O-board chances too thank to last in FG%. :(

JayRedd
10-22-2007, 03:36 PM
I think 12.0 last year and 7th in the NBA, something like that.

We were 7th, yes. But it was 12.1 alright, buddy. Get it together.


Of course there were a lot of O-board chances too thank to last in FG%. :(

This is unfortunately true.

Naptown_Seth
10-24-2007, 12:57 AM
We were 7th, yes. But it was 12.1 alright, buddy. Get it together.
More embarrassing: me being a little bothered that I didn't go make sure and get it exactly right. :o :nerd:


Okay, rebounding for the Minny game (2nd)
Pacers got their offensive boards back on track with a nice 36% of their missed FGs pulled in.

BUT....they let Minny get 40% of their own misses too. That's WAY up from the other games (29, 27, 25, 24, 23, 21...not in order of date played). I know at one point in the first Minny had a Foster moment with a series of tips and misses which bumped up this stat (and their FGA number).

I "ripped' on Foster for that last year in Denver, or more accurately those fans defending his night as huge due to the raw box score that was generated with some sloppy play at the rim. I feel the same way about it here for the Wolves sake. You hate to let them keep it alive like that, but really when it's just bouncing all around and not going in it looks better in the box than in the game. So no big whoop.

I'm more impressed to see Indy drop 47% from the field AND still pull in 36% of their misses. That's quality team offense there.


I'm the first to mention the quality of competition here. But still, no JO, no Troy and you are still seeing some pretty nice glass work on offense. This thread could end up bumped all year long to the chagrin of not just Buck, but myself and several others. ;) :D

naptown
10-24-2007, 10:48 PM
The Pacers have different kinds of players than JOB had in both Boston and Philly. This will be a solid rebounding team.

Claptonrocks
10-26-2007, 07:15 AM
JO will get his 9 boards.. he's starting to slip some due to his propensity to be a small forward with an outside shot.. I dont think he likes to bang anymore.
Murphy gets garbage boards.. He cant jump so its about positioning for the defensive ones.. Offensive boards he does not know...6 a game for him,,
Foster is what he is...has a nose for the ball...9 a game
This team is going to struggle in the paint over the season.
They have to shoot high percentage shots or theyre doomed.
Dont know about Ike yet.. maybe he'll surprise.. maybe he'll stay in foul touble too.