PDA

View Full Version : The "Rehashing AJ" Tangent



Haggard
08-01-2007, 07:32 AM
When JO was out injured, who led the team? Thats right it was Jax. Who else really stood up and took on the extra workload?? Everyone was standing around looking and waiting for something to happen. At least Jax tried to make something happen.

but for some reason we praise Anthony Johnson for one 40 performance meanwhile Jax gets booed and hissed from the crowd.

If Jax had of had '6 - 8 FGA's per game' you be complaining about his contract and what he really brings to the team.

It really has nothing to do with who flexed the most and it's funny you bring up Duncan. Sure you've seen the little cry baby faces he pulls every time he travels, or when he gets whistled for a foul, or when he thinks he was fouled. Let alone every time he gets blocked he looks at the ref and indicates that it should be goal tending.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 10:43 AM
Uh, I'm the #1 critic of AJ's 40-point ballhogging game.

For SJax, making the MLE, 6-8 FGAs per game would be "our money's worth."

He wasn't even supposed to be the guy "carrying the team" when JO would get injured. His view of himself as a primary option IS the problem. He hasn't been able to turn that off since he was the lowly Hawks' #1 option.

Kegboy
08-01-2007, 01:26 PM
Uh, I'm the one and only critic of AJ's 40-point ballhogging game.

Fixed. ;)

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 01:48 PM
Holy moly.

AJ was the only one hitting anything that day. He was not ball-hogging.

:giveup:

SparkyPacer
08-01-2007, 01:50 PM
If someone is shooting at a rather high clip why not just let him shoot more? (Especially when everyone else was sucking)

ajbry
08-01-2007, 01:52 PM
I don't know how this turned into a recollection of AJ's performance (or Jay's usual routine of watering down Jack's impact), but most of us were so desperate to win that game and AJ was the only dude who was making his shots. All of us are very aware that AJ ain't exactly a traditional PG and does not rotate the ball as he should or make his teammates better, but as far as being a pretty solid scorer at the 1 - he is. Without him hitting those shots our season ends pretty meakly.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 01:58 PM
Holy moly.

AJ was the only one hitting anything that day. He was not ball-hogging.

:giveup:

JO only got 13 FGAs, well below his regular season average a very, very small number from your #1 option in an elimination game. And most of those were in the first half.

Anthony Johnson was not interested in running the offense, or passing, he was going to do it all himself. JO, Rick, everyone else be damned.

This is the NBA. If you're going to lose, you better lose because your #1 guy just didn't have it, not because the backup PG didn't even let him try to carry the team to victory.

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 02:03 PM
We must be remembering two different games, Jay.

rexnom
08-01-2007, 02:10 PM
Fixed. ;)
I actually agree with Jay. It reminds of that Dallas-Phoenix series in Nash's first year with the Suns (second stint). The only way Dallas could win was when Nash scored and didn't distribute. Prime example was game 4 that they won by "letting Nash" get 48pts. He shot 20-28 in that game (!) but only got 5 assists. Amare Stoudemire who tore up the Mavs most of that series and the Spurs in the WCF only had 13pts due to 8 shot attempts (...sound familiar?).

As a counter-example, in game one Nash was the fifth leading scorer on his own team but he had 13 assists. In that game Joe Johnson scored 23, Marion 25, and Q-Rich even nailed 4 threes. Amare? He hit a great % on 21 shots and had a god-like 40pts and 16 rebs (...sound familiar?).

Obviously, AJ isn't Steve Nash. He can't feed his big man nearly as well...but have you guys considered that maybe that was the problem? Maybe that's why we lost. The game four loss was the only game in that series where Nash didn't have at least 12 assists (the lost the other game in the series by two points...i.e. it could have gone either way).

JayRedd
08-01-2007, 02:19 PM
JO shot 2 for 3 in the 4th Quarter of that Game 6. He made his last shot (a jumper) at the 1:44 mark, and got one attempt from the paint with 0:27 left, but it was blocked by RJ (I can't seem to remember this play...anyone recall if it was a weak finish or just good-*** defense by Jefferson?)

AJ did go 6 for 9 in the 4th, keeping us in the game when the offense was stagnant (which was quite possibly because of him) including a huge trey to cut it to 2 points at the 0:56 mark.

However, that was the last shot he made and he missed two other in the final minute and got called for a charge.

Not sure AJ should have been trying to score four times in the final minute, regardless of how unconscious he was.

Moreover, aside from JO's made jumper at 1:44 and the layup of his RJ that blocked, nobody other than AJ took a shot in the final two minutes of the game.

I agree that AJ was trying to do too much with a hot hand. He was essentially the guy who kept upping his bet at the black-jack table, expecting to never hit a bad streak. It should be noted that no one else was playing particularly well, however, so AJ's attempt to be Dwyane Wade, while foolish, was at least understandable.


Here's the play-by-play for better exactitude.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=260504011&period=4

Since86
08-01-2007, 02:33 PM
JO shot 2 for 3 in the 4th Quarter of that Game 6. He made his last shot (a jumper) at the 1:44 mark, and got one attempt from the paint with 0:27 left, but it was blocked by RJ (I can't seem to remember this play...anyone recall if it was a weak finish or just good-*** defense by Jefferson?)

It was more than just weak. He faded back when he was literally in front of the rim, and RJ blocked it from behind.

I remember screaming at the TV in a buddies room because he looked like a 7th grader in a varsity game at that moment.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 03:00 PM
Do we have to do this again?

I've never said JO had enough to get us to victory. He was hobbling, and that shot attempt was weak.

Its too bad he didn't get many shot attempts during the bulk of the game, when he was stronger. Maybe he wouldn't have needed to make a heroic effort in the final minutes.

I recall that game quite well - I spent the entire game screaming to get the ball to JO.

I can live with losing an elimination game if JO just didn't have it that night. But not with the fact that JO didn't even get a chance because his PG didn't let him.

My hunch is that Rick, Larry, and Donnie felt the same when they sent AJ packing for three scrubs.

Yes, we were probably going to lose anyway. But there's a right way to lose an elimination game and a wrong way. This was the wrong way. You ride a "hot hand" on a Tuesday night in February in Milwaukee. Not an elimination game.

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 03:46 PM
Without looking at stats, here's what I remember:

JO fading away. JO fading away.

One-pass basketball with the receiver missing his shot. A LOT.

Everybody standing around.

AJ showing more effort than everyone else on the floor put together.

JO played terribly. I mean absolutely awful.

When plan A doesn't work, you have to try plan B. When plan B doesn't work, try plan C. When even that doesn't work, ride the hot hand.

EDIT This was an elimination game, and you've said yourself that the playoffs are about adjustments. Now you're saying that you have to follow the game plan like a robot, even when the robots joints are frozen from rust. Which is it?

rexnom
08-01-2007, 03:49 PM
Without looking at stats, here's what I remember:

JO fading away. JO fading away.

One-pass basketball with the receiver missing his shot. A LOT.

Everybody standing around.

AJ showing more effort than everyone else on the floor put together.

JO played terribly. I mean absolutely awful.

When plan A doesn't work, you have to try plan B. When plan B doesn't work, try plan C. When even that doesn't work, ride the hot hand.
I guess 8-14 for 21 pts with few shots coming late screams "terrible" to some people while it screams "get him the friggin ball" to others.

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 03:51 PM
I guess 8-14 for 21 pts with few shots coming late screams "terrible" to some people while it screams "get him the friggin ball" to others.

JO had nothing in the tank. It was obvious. He got blocked from behind for pete's sakes.

EDIT: you know what? Never mind. I'm willing to concede the JO portion of the discussion and talk only about AJ's performance - which I believe was solid on both ends of the floor.

You want to know why we lost? Here's why:

Austin Croshere. 2-8, 7 pts, in 39 minutes
Stephen Jackson. 2-10, 9 pts, in 38 minutes
And my favorite: Pacers ENTIRE BENCH: 0-7 for 0 points






I don't think you guys are willing to say that maybe - just maybe - AJ made some good decisions that day.

rexnom
08-01-2007, 03:54 PM
JO had nothing in the tank. It was obvious. He got blocked from behind for pete's sakes.
I think the entire point was to get him more shots in the third and early fourth. What's the point of him wasting his energy and getting position if AJ is just going to shoot by himself? By the way, I don't think anybody would have minded AJ doing well but maybe if he had involved JO a bit then he would have had more in the tank in the final minutes as well...Again, my earlier Nash point stands...

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 04:01 PM
I edited my post above. I think that's where I should leave it.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 05:59 PM
When plan A doesn't work, you have to try plan B. When plan B doesn't work, try plan C. When even that doesn't work, ride the hot hand.

EDIT This was an elimination game, and you've said yourself that the playoffs are about adjustments. Now you're saying that you have to follow the game plan like a robot, even when the robots joints are frozen from rust. Which is it?

I don't mean for this to be confusing. Adjustments are important. In an elimination game, you better be making adjustments to allow your best player to dominate the game. Why was the annual "replace Foster with Croshere move" successful for at least one game if not more? Because it helped JO, the team's best player.

The Nets did little to contain JO that series, and JO was far less than 100%.

JO's foul trouble was the big difference. When JO could stay on the court, he was pretty effective offensively.

Game 1, 15 points on 50% shooting (10 shots), limited to 29 minutes because of five fouls.
Game 2, 12 points on BAD shooting (25%) (12 shots), limited to 32 minutes because of five fouls.
Game 3, spectacular 37 points on just 15 FGAs (80% FG%), played 40 minutes with only three fouls.
Game 4, 22 points on 8-15 shooting, limited to 31 minutes because he fouled out.
Game 5, 19 points on 8-18 shooting, played 42 minutes with only four fouls.

Five games, 36 - 70 (51% for the "JO can't shoot crowd) - only 14 FGA per game for your best player in the playoffs? :crazy: (For the record, his 8-14 in Game #6 raised his playoff FG% to 52%).

Yep, seems to me that the appropriate adjustment for Game #6 was to voluntarily take the ball away from your best overall player.

If there was something he didn't do at "up to JO's standards" that series it was rebound, his only double-digit rebounding game was Game #3. You want to criticize JO's performance in spite of hobbling on one leg and recently returning from a torn groin muscle, then complain about his lack of rebounding. But his offense was back...

If JO can stay out of foul trouble and on the court longer in either Game #2 or Game #4, and then Game #6 might be a clinching game instead of an elimination game.

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 06:10 PM
I'm talking about in-game adjustment.

When your star is getting triple teamed, and neither your outside threat (Croshere) OR your "slashing" player (Jackson) can hit the side of a barn, who do you rely on? Your bench? Your SF? (Not Peja, he didn't bother to show up. I'm talking about Granger's unproductive night).

Only two players were in that game. 1) JO who was hobbled and swarmed and 2) AJ who was trying all night to make something from absolutely nothing.

I just can't believe that the conversation about that game leans toward giving one of only two contributors a black eye. The criticism should rest on the entire rest of the team.

I wish I had this game on tape.

EDIT: maybe the adjustment should have been replacing Croshere with Foster and Pollard. if all you're going to get is 2 buckets, you might as well use a player that can lighten the load on D. Who knows.

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 06:16 PM
And one more thing about that game: I seem to recall several of AJ buckets being assisted by other players, most notably Jackson. Where is the ball hog thing coming from? If he jsut ran down the court and chucked it, OK, he's a ball hog. but when the ball comes back to him and he hits the shot, is that still "hogging"?

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 07:46 PM
http://www.nba.com/games/20060504/NJNIND/playbyplay.html

Try again. Johnson was assisted once, in the second quarter, by Jackson.

There wasn't much passing by the home team in that game, period. Collectively, we had 12 (yes, 12) assists. We averaged 19.9 apg that season.

I don't buy the notion for a second that the coaching staff wanted AJ to take over the game by himself. This wasn't a "he's got the hot hand, we should ride him" decision by the staff. This was an "I've got the hot hand, the hell with my teammates" decision by the backup PG. He took a low percentage gamble that he could come through and beat the Nets on his own. Even if I'm the only fan holding him accountable for that bad decision, I'll do it.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 07:48 PM
EDIT: maybe the adjustment should have been replacing Croshere with Foster and Pollard. if all you're going to get is 2 buckets, you might as well use a player that can lighten the load on D. Who knows.

Or Harrison, who was very good in limited minutes that series, including a parade to the FT in one of the home games when the refs and Rick let him play.

able
08-01-2007, 08:59 PM
http://www.nba.com/games/20060504/NJNIND/playbyplay.html

Try again. Johnson was assisted once, in the second quarter, by Jackson.

There wasn't much passing by the home team in that game, period. Collectively, we had 12 (yes, 12) assists. We averaged 19.9 apg that season.

I don't buy the notion for a second that the coaching staff wanted AJ to take over the game by himself. This wasn't a "he's got the hot hand, we should ride him" decision by the staff. This was an "I've got the hot hand, the hell with my teammates" decision by the backup PG. He took a low percentage gamble that he could come through and beat the Nets on his own. Even if I'm the only fan holding him accountable for that bad decision, I'll do it.


UH you're not the only one, I am standing right beside you!

Pacersin2033
08-01-2007, 09:00 PM
I can't believe people wanted a guy who shot 16-23 while shooting 3 pointers to delegate to a guy shooting a worse percentage without 3 pointers. One is going to produce more points than the other one. Lets try and figure out which one. JO is not a good offensive player. 43% not good.

Lets see that game.

AJ scored 19 more points on 13% better shooting
Grabbed one fewer rebounds than his PF, PF PG so similar I guess
5 more assists
1 less TO
2 More steals
3 fewer fouls
And the same amount of blocks

I am thinking One was performing better. The whole theory that a certain player should get X amount of shots no matter how they or somebody else is performing is a recipe for disaster. The people who are hot, should take shots, and the people who are less hot, to cold should take fewer shots.

And I agree Jax was really a scapegoat, the guy was meant to be a 2rd to 3rd option on D, and a 3rd to 4th option on offense. But he spent most of his time as a number 1 option on both, and the rest as a #2, and people got upset because he wasn't that player. The fans just set the bar too high, theres a reason he wasn't getting paid like a number 1 or 2 option, he wasn't one.

He was a complimentary player, that was playing out of his role and people just didn't realize or realize that.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 09:07 PM
I can't believe people wanted a guy who shot 16-23 while shooting 3 pointers to delegate to a guy shooting a worse percentage without 3 pointers.

Pay attention.

We wanted the guy who was supposed to be running the offense to get the ball to the team's #1 option, BECAUSE IT WAS AN ELIMINATION GAME.

The season was on the line. We didn't get to see if our star player could come through because his PG didn't let him try. Until it was too late.

Pacersin2033
08-01-2007, 09:14 PM
Pay attention.

We wanted the guy who was supposed to be running the offense to get the ball to the team's #1 option, BECAUSE IT WAS AN ELIMINATION GAME.

The season was on the line. We didn't get to see if our star player could come through because his PG didn't let him try. Until it was too late.


Do you try and be rude, or does it just happen.

JO had his shot, he wasn't performing as well as AJ, so AJ continued to take shots. JO has never come through in the clutch, why should they force feed him the ball when somebody else is performing better.

JO is not a good offensive player, do I need to repeat that. Just because a guy is paid mroe and sells more jerseys to tax accountants who go to the game so they can say they went and be cool to their neighbor doesn't mean he should be the guy that takes the shots in an elimination game. Whoever is performing better should be, and guess what, AJ was doing better.

JO could have tried to help the team win in other ways, but he didn't so whats to make you think he was going to all of a sudden become something he wasn't, a good offensive player.

Los Angeles
08-01-2007, 09:18 PM
http://www.nba.com/games/20060504/NJNIND/playbyplay.html

Try again. Johnson was assisted once, in the second quarter, by Jackson.

There wasn't much passing by the home team in that game, period. Collectively, we had 12 (yes, 12) assists. We averaged 19.9 apg that season.

I don't buy the notion for a second that the coaching staff wanted AJ to take over the game by himself. This wasn't a "he's got the hot hand, we should ride him" decision by the staff. This was an "I've got the hot hand, the hell with my teammates" decision by the backup PG. He took a low percentage gamble that he could come through and beat the Nets on his own. Even if I'm the only fan holding him accountable for that bad decision, I'll do it.

Well, I'll just have to let this go.

I see your perspective more clearly now. And I've made a couple of misteps along the way (like not looking up Johnson's assisted shots and just reporting an "impression"). I don't think I'll recover from my mistakes in this conversation to keep it up.

In the end, I don't have a problem with you holding AJ "accountable". I just wonder why it seems you want to hold him more accountable for the loss than these guys:

Tinsley for not even playing in the first place. and if he doesn't count, then you need to recant calling AJ the "2nd string PG" you can't have that both ways.)

Peja Stojakovic for not even dressing, leaving us 1 man shy of a 12 man roster.

The general effort of the team as a whole.

The horrid, horrid shooting of our supposed 'shooters'.

Rick Carlisle for letting the "ball-hogging" continue.

And the list could go on and on.

So what happens IF AJ had been less of a ball-hog? My guess is that we lose by more points. Unless you want to explain how our other players (Jackson, Sarunas, whoever) would have scored more easily, I don't know where the points would have come from. You'll also have to explain how we would have gotten the swarm away from a worn out JO.

Was AJ a good player? Not really. Was AJ a good point guard? Not at all. Was AJ a good teammate? Reports say unlikely. But was AJ's 40 point performance the reason we lost that game? No.

Bball
08-01-2007, 09:56 PM
Pay attention.

We wanted the guy who was supposed to be running the offense to get the ball to the team's #1 option, BECAUSE IT WAS AN ELIMINATION GAME.

The season was on the line. We didn't get to see if our star player could come through because his PG didn't let him try. Until it was too late.

That's probably because the team had lost confidence in JO. ..or maybe it was just AJ...

-Bball

rexnom
08-01-2007, 10:12 PM
It's ok, I just don't think we had any business winning that game without Peja to begin with.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 11:53 PM
Do you try and be rude, or does it just happen.

Okay, "Pay attention" was probably rude. I apologize.

Having said that, the sentence that I quoted was so off-base from what I, and a limited number of others, were actually saying that it merited some type of response.

I should have asked "are you even paying attention" - as that is a legitimate response - instead of saying it as if it were a command.


JO had his shot, he wasn't performing as well as AJ, so AJ continued to take shots. JO has never come through in the clutch, why should they force feed him the ball when somebody else is performing better.

I can't believe I've got to do this again.

You realize that during the 02-03 season, JO and Chauncey Billups were tied for more points during the last five minutes of games decided by five points or less. Of course, I had to hear that from the Pistons announcers that season, because at that time Pacers fans didn't want to hear/ admit that Reggie was no longer the team's go-to player in the clutch.

So by saying "JO has never come through in the clutch" you aren't exactly getting many credibility points.


JO is not a good offensive player, do I need to repeat that.

You can repeat it as often as you'd like. Its absurdly untrue, but you can keep saying it. He may not be a top-five player anymore. That may have only lasted two seasons. But to say that he's not good at offense is outrageous.

Why do teams triple team him? Have you seen what he can do to Milwaukee when they play him straight-up.

Even in the series we are discussing, JO had a thirty-seven point game on just fifteen shots.

Try something different. Explain why JO is not good at offense. This ought to be good.


Just because a guy is paid mroe and sells more jerseys to tax accountants who go to the game so they can say they went and be cool to their neighbor doesn't mean he should be the guy that takes the shots in an elimination game. Whoever is performing better should be, and guess what, AJ was doing better.

Not a good strategy for an elimination game. You don't ride a hot hand in an elimination game, you ride your best play for better or worse.


JO could have tried to help the team win in other ways, but he didn't so whats to make you think he was going to all of a sudden become something he wasn't, a good offensive player.

Okay, whatever.

rexnom
08-02-2007, 12:11 AM
I'm inclined to believe LA on this one: I think we should fault Rick, Peja, and our horrible cast that completely underperformed that game. JO and AJ probably aren't to blame. The AJ being a ballhog argument has merit but Rick should have said something like "get the effing ball to Jermaine" or take AJ out if he said that and AJ didn't do it. I don't know if we can fault AJ for taking those shots-he was making them. The problem was bigger than that.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 12:14 AM
Well, I'll just have to let this go.

I see your perspective more clearly now. And I've made a couple of misteps along the way (like not looking up Johnson's assisted shots and just reporting an "impression"). I don't think I'll recover from my mistakes in this conversation to keep it up.

Sure you can. You know me well enough that you know i don't want you to back down.


In the end, I don't have a problem with you holding AJ "accountable". I just wonder why it seems you want to hold him more accountable for the loss than these guys:

Tinsley for not even playing in the first place. and if he doesn't count, then you need to recant calling AJ the "2nd string PG" you can't have that both ways.)

Agree.


Peja Stojakovic for not even dressing, leaving us 1 man shy of a 12 man roster.

Agree. And in spite of those two missing, the game was still competitive and winnable.


The general effort of the team as a whole.

Okay. 30 rebounds as a team at home in a "last game of the season" is ugly. But don't forget, the shootaround that morning was disrupted when a certain recently-convicted felon went AWOL. Although Rick started him anyway, leaving a number of PD members at wit's end.


The horrid, horrid shooting of our supposed 'shooters'.

What shooters? Peja didn't dress. SJax was 2-10 but I don't consider him a shooter. Well, he's a shooter, too bad he's not often a hitter. Croshere was 2-8. Fred and Saras combined to go 0-6.

At least Danny was 5-8 with 13 points and five rebounds. Not bad for a rookie in his first elimination game.


Rick Carlisle for letting the "ball-hogging" continue.

Yes, Rick gets blame for several things that day - letting SJax play after cutting practice, letting AJ continue to freeze-out JO, not 'throwing a huge stink' about Peja's disappearing act.


And the list could go on and on.

So what happens IF AJ had been less of a ball-hog? My guess is that we lose by more points.

Could be true. I'd find it easier to take though, if we lost because our main guy just wasn't enough to beat thier "big three" singlehandedly.


Unless you want to explain how our other players (Jackson, Sarunas, whoever) would have scored more easily, I don't know where the points would have come from. You'll also have to explain how we would have gotten the swarm away from a worn out JO.

Harrison would've helped. Enough? I don't know.


Was AJ a good player? Not really. Was AJ a good point guard? Not at all. Was AJ a good teammate? Reports say unlikely. But was AJ's 40 point performance the reason we lost that game? No.

I've said every time we've had this discussion that it probably wouldn't have been enough. That team was exhausted. They'd tuned out Carlisle long before the playoffs arrived (remember, I wanted him replaced with six games left in the season that year and everybody threw darts at me for that, too.) Artestgate, Peja had quit on them, SJax wasn't coming to practice, Tinsley was clearly in no physical condition to be playing, JO rushing back from a groin injury and being well below his normal playing condition. That team was running on fumes. Yet the game itself was still competitive. It was there to be taken in the second half, if we go into the last three minutes with a lead it could've turned out differently.

Or not. I'd just like to know what would have happened if JO was given a chance to put the team on his back. Yes the odds are much greater than 50-50 that the outcome is the same, but not because JO sucks at offense. That team was in disarray.

Los Angeles
08-02-2007, 01:03 AM
Jay, I think we've found quite a lot of common ground, and I've definitely enjoyed the conversation.

And of course, I didn't list Jackson's melt-down. Man, I can't wait until the memories of these seasons fade.

The re-curring writings on PD that suggest we were better off when we had these clowns drives me far crazier than the interpretation of one game...

So, can I list you as as backing a "throw-it-in-to-JO" offense for another year? :devil:

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:11 AM
If he's surrounded by some reliable shooters, I think it would work.

:dunce:

Nobody ever said I was NOT stubborn.

PaceBalls
08-02-2007, 02:09 AM
I'm with Jay on this one...

We lost that game guys...

AJ took over that game and guess what... it wasn't enough, we lost an elimination playoff game. Yeah he ballhogged, yeah he thought it was his coming out party, but it wasn't. It got him traded to Dallas cause he didn't follow the program when it counted most. That was his role, to follow the program, to be the back up, to be the steady hand that follows the plan. There is a reason that was his last game as a Pacer.

Peck
08-02-2007, 03:41 AM
I'm sorry I read this thread.:(

I will never EVER for the life of me understand how anyone blames A.J. for that game.

I've asked before and I'll ask again.

If J.O. had scored 40 points that game exactly how would his 40 points have counted more than A.J.'s 40 points?

Don't give me the "he would have had them in foul trouble" routine either.

Instead of blaming A.J. and Carlisle how about we blame Walsh and Bird for not trading away Jamaal Tinsley after that game.

Stop pretending that Jermaine O'Neal is Shaquille O'Neal. He is a good player that would be best served being part of a machine, not constantly being force fed the ball as you and our previous coach would have us believe.

Unclebuck
08-02-2007, 09:28 AM
I'm sorry I read this thread.:(

I will never EVER for the life of me understand how anyone blames A.J. for that game.

I've asked before and I'll ask again.

If J.O. had scored 40 points that game exactly how would his 40 points have counted more than A.J.'s 40 points?

Don't give me the "he would have had them in foul trouble" routine either.

Instead of blaming A.J. and Carlisle how about we blame Walsh and Bird for not trading away Jamaal Tinsley after that game.

Stop pretending that Jermaine O'Neal is Shaquille O'Neal. He is a good player that would be best served being part of a machine, not constantly being force fed the ball as you and our previous coach would have us believe.



I just very briefly skimmed over this thread, but let me say I agree 100% with Peck.

If i really cared a lot about this topic, I would love to go back and watch that AJ 40 point game again - my memory of it is he was the only memeber of our team who was able to score and he kept us in the game - without him scoring all those points - we get blown out early on

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 12:01 PM
If J.O. had scored 40 points that game exactly how would his 40 points have counted more than A.J.'s 40 points?

AJ got his forty points because he, as PG, did not get anyone else involved.

If JO would have had more opportunities, it would be because AJ was running THE OFFENSE (regardless of whether we liked it or not, the team was being coached as an inside-out team) and *that* would've have created easier/ better scoring opportunities.

There was a gameplan. And the gameplan in an elimination game calls for your best player to step up and do his best to carry the team.

How many times in this tangent have I said, "They probably would have lost anyway, too many things were going wrong"? Several. SJax was awol until just before game time, Peja and Tinsley were in street clothes. Danny was rookie. Croshere, Fred Jones and Saras didn't get many good looks (hmmm, let's talk about AJ's 0 assists in the entire first half again) and didn't capitalize on the few opportunities they got.

I can live with losing in that situation if you lose because your big gun gave it his best effort but still came up short. But not when your PG won't even let your big gun try to put the team on his back.

If we aren't careful, it won't be long until the revisionists describe this as, "Remember when JO didn't even show up for Game #6 of the Nets series?" and that's utter bull****.

Pacersin2033
08-02-2007, 12:21 PM
Jay how JO performed 4 years prior has nothing to do with how he had performed in the playoffs in say the last 4 years.

AJ was the better offensive player, he should have and rightfully so shot the ball more. He had more points per shot than JO by a pretty good margin.

JO couldn't come up big on the defensive end, so why expect him to come up big on the offensive end.

Los Angeles
08-02-2007, 12:35 PM
The point I'll concede to Jay is this: ultimately, it is the PG's responsibility to run the offense and find opportunities for the other players to score. Trouble is, All the other players had a decent (not great) number of shot attempts. Where did they get the ball from? If they came from AJ, then he was sharing the ball. If they came from JO, then JO was getting the ball and passing it on. What are the other options?

Since86
08-02-2007, 01:38 PM
AJ got his forty points because he, as PG, did not get anyone else involved.

Unless he shot at a higher percentage, then it really doesn't matter. AJ was shooting at 70%, a pretty damn high effeciency rating considering how Rick's offense was.

I find it funny how you constantly *****ed about how awful the "dump it into JO" was, because it made other people stand around and watch him, but yet your criticizing AJ for the same thing. It really comes down to the fact that you dislike AJ because you like Tinsley.

When we had the discussion at the time, right after the game, I'm pretty sure I made a comment, or it could have been a mental one, that the Tinsley supporters were the distractors of AJ's performance (mostly you and Ragnar).

Problem: AJ being a ballhog and not getting people involved
Solution: Dump it into JO and watch him not get people invovled.

The ONLY difference is who is taking the shot, but yet that makes the world of difference for you. AJ's two points are worth just as much as JO's two points. AJ shooting 70% is just as good as JO shooting at 70%.

I don't care if Tom Thumb is shooting 70%, I will force feed him the ball until he stops.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 01:55 PM
I'm a fan of the dump-it-into JO offense, because I'm a fan of high perentage offense. I didn't have a problem with Rick's actual x's and o's, but the other stuff like player relations and managing the tempo/ shotclock.

Now I wasn't a fan of surrounding him with Foster and Tinsley that didn't need to be guarded if they didn't have the ball (and in Foster's case, didn't even need to be guarded if he did have the ball) and unpredictable Stephen Jackson. And that's obviously not really Rick's fault, he was given a lousy roster to work with.

Put JO with the Millers - Brad to help with the dirty work and keep the defense honest and Reggie to spread the court - and JO will be a monster.

Triple team him, and he's only a 19-9 guy. Yeah, he sure sucks at offense.

Since86
08-02-2007, 02:19 PM
He has a horrible shooting % for a post player, he's not a good "shooter." Watching him shoot 43% on 10ft fade away jumpers makes me want to gouge out my eyes.

A high percentage offense, isn't last in the league, which we were last season.
http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortable_team_statistics/sortable1.html#top

We were 24th in points per game, and last in fg% but yet the dump it offense was effective? Come on Jay.

EDIT: IND as a team shot 43.8%. JO shot 43.6%. All the PGs and Rawle Marshall are the only ones with a lower percentage than JO. That means Dunleavy, Murphy, and even Foster shot higher than him.

Los Angeles
08-02-2007, 02:19 PM
I'm a fan of the dump-it-into JO offense, because I'm a fan of high perentage offense.

That's where we have a problem. JO shoots a low percentage for his task. He should be above 50% along with other post playing power forwards out there.

He puts the ball in the hole maybe one out of three attempts, (the ones where he's fouled don't count against the percentage). He isn't given the foul very often because he fades away too often, so even if he misses, he doesn't get to take advantage of his 80% free throw shooting (which is outstanding for a post player, by the way).

For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out why he maintains his "dominant in the paint" reputation anymore. He consistently waits for the D to come to him before taking action, he fades away removing potential for 2 free ones, He's lost his aggressiveness.

Sure, JO can get you 20 points, but at what cost? He needs to eat through a LOT of touches to get those points.

Ultimately, I agree completely with the "high percentage" philosophy you preach. I would much rather a player shoot a shot from 4 feet instead of 14 and I prefer a shot from 14 over 24. It's when you apply the philosophy to this situation that we have problems.

JO for whatever reason is not a high-percentage player.

We both in the past have hung our hats on the hope that Harrison could be the big body that could clear space for JO to improve the situation.

During the game in question, who was going to free him up to give him the percentage we needed? Without a big body to do so, we relied on outside shots to try and spread the floor. We missed those shots, and even with AJ hitting just about everything, the nets didn't fall for it.

EDIT: in summation, I think the Nets took JO out of the game, not AJ.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 02:53 PM
He is when he's played straight up. That's always been my beef.

What happens when Milwaukee plays him straight up? 55 points.

What happened IN THAT SERIES when NJ didn't swarm him - 37 points on 15 shots.

Management and Rick clearly had different visions for the team. Rick tried to exploit his best player's strenghts, but the team wasn't built for that. Nobody knows exactly what the team was built for.

JO will be revitalized somewhere next season. If it is not in Indianapolis, we need to be compensated appropriately.

Yes, Stan Van Gundy showed the world in 2004 that if you swarm JO, he's not a great passer. Uncle Cliffy, Brian Grant, and 'Sheed know how to push JO too far from the basket. He's not invincible.

I would argue that Isiah got far more out of JO than Rick did, but Isiah had Brad and something closer to the real Reggie to work with, as well. So you couldn't afford to swarm JO. Its a management problem that we STILL haven't fixed that. But it doesn't mean that JO isn't a great offensive player - why swarm and double/ triple team him if you don't have to?

Los Angeles
08-02-2007, 03:05 PM
I will concede that JO is a great offensive player when played "straight up" if you will concede that giving JO the ball when you don't have a team built for it isn't a "high percentage" offense.

I'd drink to that. :buddies:

I will even agree to the idea that JO can be deadly again when the opposing team is *more* worried about another offensive threat. (Hmmm Kobe comes to mind. :zip: )

Since86
08-02-2007, 03:08 PM
He is when he's played straight up. That's always been my beef.

What happens when Milwaukee plays him straight up? 55 points.

What happened IN THAT SERIES when NJ didn't swarm him - 37 points on 15 shots.

Well maybe we can blackmail the rest of the league into playing him straight up so instead of being last in offensive fg%, we could move up a few spots.

On a side note, JO's fg attempts/game prior to game 6: 14. FG attmpts for game 6: 14.

Naptown_Seth
08-02-2007, 03:42 PM
You know I still have the game on TIVO which is hella better than PxP.

Big play I forgot - Fred Jones following Jeff into the lane knocks the entry pass (for potential layup) off RJs leg and out of bounds. Around 4 min left, 87-83. Just prior to this a huge steal by 8, Jack broke out long for the pass, dumped back to AC for the dunk.

Starting at 4 min to go (just after that play)

1) AJ and JO high pick and roll, both directions, ends up going right, JO doubled so AJ kicks to Fred. He steps in and misses the long jumper.

(Fred defends rebound and gets ANOTHER OOB for Indy on defense)

2) JO right to low block, AJ feeds from outside the arc, Vince doubles, JO turns, Collins flops, JO gets the easy layup

(Vince goes lane, Jackson blocks shot, Kidd's wild shot grabbed by Jack)

3) JO right to low block, AJ feeds from outside arc rightish, JO waits on double (Kidd) passes over Kidd to an open Fred Jones at the arc for the lead...he misses, JO loses the assist

(Kristic gets lane off PnR with Kidd, leaving AC at arc, JO comes to help, Kristic clearly travels during a ball fake first but JO called for and-1 foul going for the shot Kristic technically should have had to take since he used his steps already...argh, JO's FIFTH foul)

4) High PnR with JO at arc, AJ gets right to lane, all 5 Nets collapse leaving both AC and Jack wide open, AJ kicks to AC inside the arc baseline, misses the wide-open jumper

(Vince raises and chucks a miss over Jack)

5) JO in low post, AJ over to Jack right arc, Jack feeds post, quick foul by the Nets on JO, not in bonus so side out

5b) Double high picks (AC/JO), AJ goes Croshere (right) and is turned away, AC drops lane, AJ uses space to go left, kicks to JO at right FT line, he dribble-drives once and pops a FG in the lane...btw, Quinn calls foul on Collins too but it's not called by refs

(again Kidd/Kristic PnR AJ/AC, Kristic misses jumper, JO blocking out Collins is about to get the rebound when Kidd runs in from behind. Who's fault, who ball watched instead of checking his man? Anthony Johnson

Vince iso on Jack, then PnR with Collins/JO, drives past JO on the arc for the easy layup, Granger failed to step over and deny the path, in fact you seem him stutter in hesitation as he tries to figure out what to do...remember JO has 5 fouls and is killing NJ at the other end with fouls and doubles as much as FGs)

6) Off the timeout, Rick calls for another double high pick, AC and JO, again AJ goes left off AC first, then comes back to JO, but this time he just stops and pops a 3. Hits it, within 2, hurray, but it wasn't technically the play that Rick called I don't think. Usually the double pick goes into the lane off the drive or roll.

(Vince iso on Jack, PnR Collins/JO again, this time JO sees it coming and plays back more denying Vince the clean look and his crap shot misses badly)

7) no play, AJ goes right to work off semi-transition and pulls out the dribble clinic on Kidd, eventually driving and getting a shot on par with the crap Vince just missed. No offensive set at all despite the 2pt game and no transition advantage at all. It was a 2 for 1 situation (29 seconds left) however.

JO gets a monster offensive rebound that puts him UNDER THE RIM, he steps back (not a fade, so please give me a huge break on that crap) to get it up and over the rim and Jefferson jumps into him from the side (no foul, tons of contact all around) and blocks the shot away.

And not only that, but RJ almost got the rebound in the first place. Why? Because his man, none other than Granger, is standing at the high arc watching 7 guys play ball - Jack and Collins are weakside left waiting for the kickout.

(Vince on in-bound is mugged, AJ literally bounces off him and falls to the floor trying to foul and NOTHING is called, not on AJ, not on Vince, just "play on"...again, BS, took about 10 seconds to get foul called and really it should have been offensive on Vince to begin with...the game is now over)

8) Side out is called for AJ, he sends it to JO at arc, he hands it back for the desperation 3 since they are down so much, this was called for AJ but by then they needed something big and he was hot.

9) Down by 6 they move ball to Jack running to arc for desperate 3 jumper.


IMO they lost down the stretch due to:

1) Wide open misses by AC and Fred
2) Granger's awareness issues. Debate me all you want, I'll sit with anyone and go through the tape
3) AJ's defense on Kidd and his decision to force the action late when it was a 2pt game.

Jay is wrong to say that prior to that they weren't using JO. He helped draw the attention that got AC and Fred those looks, he got the low post several times, and he was the main guy in the high PnRs when he didn't start low. They were doing what Jay wanted till right at the very end, but the other players were letting him down.

He DID NOT take a "fade" in this stretch. His lane jumper was just his standard jumper move with that slight lean, but he wasn't jumping back, he was actually moving forward off the dribble. His other shot that Jeff got would have to go through the rim from underneath where he first came down with the ball, and it was a huge board in traffic to begin with.


Per the norm, no one else could consistantly make teams pay for cheating to JO which led to the Pacers losing. AJ's outburst only kept it from being worse.

Naptown_Seth
08-02-2007, 03:59 PM
why swarm and double/ triple team him if you don't have to?
QFT

Forgot my opinion or Jay's opinion, let's go with the opinion of NBA COACHES.

NBA COACHES >>> JO complaining fans

When it comes time to scheme the Pacers coach after coach prefers to make other Pacer player beat them. After awhile it stops being random chance.

"We gotta win this game, first thing is triple team Foster at the arc, we can't let his 3pt shot kill us like that." I'm sure it's just oversight that keeps them from saying that too, right?


I don't fault Rick like Jay often does which is where we argue most of the time. To me he kept putting his LIMITED talent to it's best possible use together. Fred, AC, and AJ just showed how limited by their output with other teams last year. Jack played a lot in Indy, played a lot in GS despite the same antics. Al's soft rebounding and inconsistant effort put him on the bench in round 1 of the playoffs, much to his star-player dismay. Even crazy Ron has said some positive things about Rick in the last few months and has failed to match the AS/DPOY output he had with Rick as his coach.


One thing about Rush and Diener, if JO is still here they should get the kind of looks Fred, AJ and AC got. I'm hoping they can do more with them. Before the trade last year JO was over 3 assists per game and was a top 5-6 passing big man by apg, just behind KG, Duncan, Boozer, Dirk, and Brand. He ended up "only" in the top 15 after seeing his assists drop post-trade.

Naptown_Seth
08-02-2007, 04:06 PM
I'm a fan of the dump-it-into JO offense, because I'm a fan of high perentage offense. I didn't have a problem with Rick's actual x's and o's, but the other stuff like player relations and managing the tempo/ shotclock.

Now I wasn't a fan of surrounding him with Foster and Tinsley that didn't need to be guarded if they didn't have the ball (and in Foster's case, didn't even need to be guarded if he did have the ball) and unpredictable Stephen Jackson. And that's obviously not really Rick's fault, he was given a lousy roster to work with.

Put JO with the Millers - Brad to help with the dirty work and keep the defense honest and Reggie to spread the court - and JO will be a monster.

Triple team him, and he's only a 19-9 guy. Yeah, he sure sucks at offense.
Guess we aren't really as far apart on Rick as I thought.

BTW, I also just watched a little of the GS game last year (pre-trade) to see Dun/Troy in the context of opponents. One of the very first plays in that game was the low post curl play that they had run with Danny, where he goes across lane after the SG curls both he (the 4) and JO (the 5) who are on the low block together. The ball gets dumped to the 5 if the SG curl isn't open as an option and when they doubled JO with Foster's man he just did a quick dump for the easy score by Jeff.

Play just before that was similar, got JO to the rim, hard attack by Biedrens and Barnes left Jeff wide open for the weakside rebound and easy layup.

So Jeff with JO can certainly work, and JO's presence benefits him as much as anyone by freeing up the offensive boards a little on some big man doubles.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 06:03 PM
I will concede that JO is a great offensive player when played "straight up" if you will concede that giving JO the ball when you don't have a team built for it isn't a "high percentage" offense.

I'd drink to that. :buddies:

I will even agree to the idea that JO can be deadly again when the opposing team is *more* worried about another offensive threat. (Hmmm Kobe comes to mind. :zip: )

You need to come to Chicago again soon so that we can drink to *something*.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 06:13 PM
Seth,

My beef had much less to the with the last four minutes of the second half (when JO was admittedly gassed from playing on a still-unhealed groin tear) than the first twenty minutes of the second half.

I think in the last five minutes or so AJ realized "I'm cooling off, I better get everybody else involved" but it was too late. Nobody was in a rhythm.

We had a whopping four assists in the first half, and three of those came from my whipping boy.

Los Angeles
08-03-2007, 12:28 PM
You need to come to Chicago again soon so that we can drink to *something*.

Sounds good!

Evan_The_Dude
08-04-2007, 09:33 AM
If any blame goes on anyone for AJ's 40 point game, it should be Rick Carlisle. Think about it. When the team was short handed due to injuries or suspensions, who did he ask to step up and carry our offense? Jamaal Tinsley. This past season when Marquis Daniels went down with his knee injury (after he had been holding his own in the back court), who did Rick ask to step up and be more aggressive on the offensive end (though some of you don't believe he did for some reason)? Jamaal Tinsley. So when Jermaine was hobbling, Peja was making sure he got that big contract, Tinsley was injured, and Sarunas was sucking, Rick actually had something in AJ who up to that point had been having a good series against Jason Kidd due to them playing together earlier in their careers. So if you look back at Rick's point guard history, it's pretty easy to see that Rick more than likely told AJ to be very aggressive in the elimination game. It just so happened that in being aggressive, it turned out that AJ had a very hot hand that day. I bet Rick told him to keep shooting because they weren't stopping him.

Kegboy
08-04-2007, 11:12 AM
No, the real fault for AJ's 40-point game is Jason Kidd, because he couldn't guard him if his life depended on it.

Naptown_Seth
08-04-2007, 01:33 PM
Rick didn't tell him to shoot a quick 3 off the high double PnR. That's a penetration play, not a "if Kidd drops off just chuck it right away" shot. AJ's other shot in that final stretch was his own layup attempt in which NO PLAY was run, it was transition and there is no "looking back to Rick" when the ball comes up. No one else is even set yet and AJ just goes to work.

The boring, work it through JO offense got JO looks at the rim, drew fouls, and got open shots for teammates. The 2 most defended FGAs came off the AJ freelancing.

AJ also let Kidd get to the offensive glass way too often which is why Kidd was the leading rebounder for both teams.


BTW, the main issue was when Peja didn't play and Rick was forced to turn to Granger. Danny vs Jefferson was a horrible mismatch, including RJ going 10-13 for 30 points in game 6. Whatever Danny is going to be he clearly wasn't that in his rookie year, not even last year actually. That's not his fault or Rick's (RC tried to start Fred Jones previously, didn't go any better), that's on Peja or TPTB for going after Peja if you'd prefer.


Kegboy is right about why AJ went off, Kidd was always his Robert Horry. Luckily it didn't turn into another $8m/year for 5 years deal. :D