PDA

View Full Version : OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...



bambam
12-01-2007, 12:29 PM
I was going to post this lastnight, but I figured i would sleep on it!

Well, I feel no different! EVERY game JO is in the offense SLOWS DOWN! When he isnt in the game, the offense runs and runs alot. I am not disrespecting saying JO is not any good. I am saying he does not fit the running style gameplan.

If we are more of a running team, then why when JO is in the lineup do we goto a set offense? I am tired of people saying JO is a good fit for this offense. I have tried to give it time, but COME ON!

If he is injured and needs to get to 100%, then sit him for 10 games. Lets see what this team can do for 10 straight games w/o JO. So far with out JO the record speaks for itself.


http://www.nba.com/media/pacers/plus_minus_header.jpg
Harrison +32
Rush +30
Tinsley +30
Dunleavy +23
Williams +11
Foster -3
Daniels -29
TEAM AVG -30
Jermaine -33
Murphy -51
Deiner -57
Granger -70

<META content=Word.Document name=ProgId><META content="Microsoft Word 11" name=Generator><META content="Microsoft Word 11" name=Originator><LINK href="plus_minus_0708_files/filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:\5B8B\4F53; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}@font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}p.Personal2, li.Personal2, div.Personal2 {mso-style-name:Personal2; margin-top:0in; margin-right:49.25pt; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:150%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;}p.Personal3, li.Personal3, div.Personal3 {mso-style-name:Personal3; margin-top:0in; margin-right:19.5pt; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}p.Personal4, li.Personal4, div.Personal4 {mso-style-name:Personal4; mso-style-parent:Personal3; margin-top:0in; margin-right:19.5pt; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:navy;}p.Bruno, li.Bruno, div.Bruno {mso-style-name:Bruno; mso-style-update:auto; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:12.0pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:navy;}p.Bruno2, li.Bruno2, div.Bruno2 {mso-style-name:Bruno2; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:SimSun; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:navy;}span.SpellE {mso-style-name:""; mso-spl-e:yes;}@page Section1 {size:11.0in 8.5in; mso-page-orientation:landscape; margin:.6in 1.0in .6in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1 {page:Section1;}--></STYLE>
Suprising the fact Danny is the lowest plus/minus on the team. But he has also logged more minutes than anyone. So he has been in just about every lineup situation. But, again I am not suprised at all JO is where he is in the negative area. But I like seeing Harrison is the highest on the team. I think think this systems fits Hulk, plus he is getting playing time to.

CableKC
12-01-2007, 12:43 PM
I couldn't watch the game.....but only listen...so I can't make a valid call after 1 game with JONeal back....but the Pacers radio commentator ( is it Clark Kellogg ? ) mentioned that the player movement grinds to a halt when JONeal gets the ball.

Anthem
12-01-2007, 12:57 PM
http://www.nba.com/media/pacers/plus_minus_header.jpg
Harrison +32
Rush +30
Tinsley +30
Dunleavy +23
Williams +11
Foster -3
Daniels -29
TEAM AVG -30
Jermaine -33
Murphy -51
Deiner -57
Granger -70Suprising the fact Danny is the lowest plus/minus on the team. But he has also logged more minutes than anyone. So he has been in just about every lineup situation. But, again I am not suprised at all JO is where he is in the negative area. But I like seeing Harrison is the highest on the team. I think think this systems fits Hulk, plus he is getting playing time to.
Rush is a +30? That seems hard to believe.

Hicks
12-01-2007, 01:06 PM
Rush is a +30? That seems hard to believe.

Isn't is just a wonderful, useful stat?

SoupIsGood
12-01-2007, 01:07 PM
Harrison +32



:proud:

Speed
12-01-2007, 01:21 PM
It's really hard to get behind any stat that shows Granger as the guy who is bringing them down and Harrison/Rush as dominant.

I think it may have to do with sampling size for one relative to how good your team is in outscoring the opponent.

You'd think it would be dead on, but again I just can't believe Granger is a problem.

bambam
12-01-2007, 02:33 PM
The plus/minus dont really mean a whole lot. But I want to see if anyone here wants to argue the fact that the offense doesnt slow down when JO is in the lineup.

Pacemaker
12-01-2007, 02:43 PM
JO doesn't fits in Obie's the system. Trade or bust. He's too fragile these days.

bambam
12-01-2007, 03:03 PM
WITH JO....3-7

W/O JO....5-1



Early, but a big difference

Shade
12-01-2007, 03:52 PM
Can we please stop with the plus/minus garbage being used to try to prove a point? The only point it proves is how pointless the plus/minus stat is.

Young
12-01-2007, 04:08 PM
Can we please stop with the plus/minus garbage being used to try to prove a point? The only point it proves is how pointless the plus/minus stat is.

Yeah I'm not a big fan of it although it's interesting I guess.

Didn't Jim say that it's a stat that they rely on a lot? That suprises me. I don't see much use for it because there are a lot of factors in the +/- that it is not all black and white.

Tom White
12-01-2007, 04:39 PM
The plus/minus dont really mean a whole lot.

Then WHY did you use it?

...and in such large type?

So you are saying that something you went to the trouble to point out that boldly, doesn't really mean anything?

OK, makes perfect sense to me.

Shack80
12-01-2007, 05:12 PM
Like any stat it has to be taken with more in mind than just the number. It does not tell all, but I suppose if properly used can be useful.

tmhorn15
12-01-2007, 08:33 PM
I think the +/- indicates an outstanding job by JOB, so far. When the other team puts a weak team on the court, he uses this as an opportunity to get some playing time for some struggling/developing players.
About JO slowing down the offense-I think he should get a big break. Why is it so hard to understand or believe that a player is really injured? JO has not developed a game that enables him to play at a superstar level without completely relying on his athleticism. Not to compare him with Jordan, but I believe Jordan became great only after he quit relying so much on his athleticism and started playing with his head (getting every call helped a lot too).
I do agree that he should sit until he is COMPLETELY healed this time-
same for Ike and Daniels. What's the point in having such a deep team if the players don't take the time to heal properly?

TheDon
12-02-2007, 12:58 AM
Another great example of the +/- stat was watching the bulls vs. bobcats game and someone had asked for an explanation of the +/- system. The announcers explained it, then went on to say it's all lies and a bad bad evaluator. They cited Kevin Durant as an example at being -159 on the season "who would ever want a guy with that horrible of a number" they joked.

naptownmenace
12-02-2007, 01:05 AM
JO didn't slow down the offense at all last night. They still got good shots and slashed to the basket but they couldn't hit their layups.

JO had his best game of the season if you ask me. He hit the boards hard and his defense was solid after the first quarter.

ilive4sports
12-02-2007, 01:14 AM
Hmmm i didnt know that JO would actually cause the team to shoot horribly. Isnt that really why the offense was bogged down? Because no one could hit a basket, right? Jermaine shot better than most the team, rebounded well too and played D. I just dont think this post is too effective after a game we lost because of bad shooting from the entire team, not something Jermaine did.

Pacersfan46
12-02-2007, 03:28 AM
Hmmm i didnt know that JO would actually cause the team to shoot horribly. Isnt that really why the offense was bogged down? Because no one could hit a basket, right? Jermaine shot better than most the team, rebounded well too and played D. I just dont think this post is too effective after a game we lost because of bad shooting from the entire team, not something Jermaine did.

I hear this argument constantly. It may, or may not be Jermaine's fault, however when he gets the ball, movement halts. When movement stops the quality of shots is going to drop. Why else would ball movement, and player movement be important?

Jermaine's presence seems to be impeding both. I'm not shocked that shooting is down when he plays. Those guys are just too used to handing him the ball and watching, and he's too used to doing it. Maybe that's it or not, I dunno. We may never know.

But don't act like his presence cannot and will never effect the shots other players take.

ilive4sports
12-02-2007, 03:40 AM
Wait, so its his fault that players dont move? Shouldnt they be moving no matter who has the ball or how long that individual has it(and i know JO needs to be quicker with his decisions but that will come in time.) Im just saying that you cant fault him for the actions of others taught under the previous coach. The other guys need to listen to JOB even when JO has the ball. Its not JOs fault that they are used to handing the ball to him and watching him. JO does need to elevate his game and get adjusted to the new offense, and i think last night was a positive step towards that. Jermaine did not cause those layups to be missed or those 3s.

NPFII
12-02-2007, 04:23 AM
Where do you want them to "move without the ball"?

If JO gets the ball on the block, the matter at hand for the other 4 guys is now SPACING. They need to keep AWAY from each-other so that if JO is doubled they can swing it to the open guy. If they dont do this - they can double JO with practically no reprecussions. That's why ball movement and player movement stops, and the offense stagnates.

Now JO has 2 options - go iso 1on1, or wait for the defense to make a move to double him. He's got to READ the situation and REACT.

IMO he's not that good in either. Not anywhere near the great ones - Duncan, Garnett, even Shaq is decent. He once used to be very good at iso1on1, but he's not that good at that anymore, when his explosiveness and athleticism are hampered by injuries.

That's why he's a liability to an uptempo-moving offense.
That's why the offense halts.

bambam
12-02-2007, 10:02 AM
Wait, so its his fault that players dont move? Shouldnt they be moving no matter who has the ball or how long that individual has it(and i know JO needs to be quicker with his decisions but that will come in time.) Im just saying that you cant fault him for the actions of others taught under the previous coach. The other guys need to listen to JOB even when JO has the ball. Its not JOs fault that they are used to handing the ball to him and watching him. JO does need to elevate his game and get adjusted to the new offense, and i think last night was a positive step towards that. Jermaine did not cause those layups to be missed or those 3s.


PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS

W/O JO: 5-1
(Pacers: 108.0 ppg - Opp: 103.3 ppg)

With JO: 3-8
(Pacers: 99.2 ppg - Opp: 104.5 ppg)

Putnam
12-02-2007, 10:32 AM
Isn't is just a wonderful, useful stat?


It's really hard to get behind any stat that shows Granger as the guy who is bringing them down and Harrison/Rush as dominant.

I think it may have to do with sampling size for one relative to how good your team is in outscoring the opponent.


the plus minus dont really mean a whole lot


Can we please stop with the plus/minus garbage being used to try to prove a point? The only point it proves is how pointless the plus/minus stat is.


The +/- is a perfect measure of what is purports to measure. The Pacers have scored 70 fewer points than their opponents while Granger was on the floor. It's true. And they have scored 30 more points than their opponents while Kareem rush was on the floor. That also is true. That doesn't mean that Rush is better than Granger, but it is nevertheless true.

Speed, sampling size has nothing to do with it. The +/- is based on the universe -- all 240 minutes of every game played so far -- not a sample. But you are right in the rest of your post: the +/- is about how the team does relative to the opponent while you are on the floor.

Now, we can all just get along here if we recognize that the +/- is not a tool for identifying the best player. Is Granger our worst player? Nah. Does the +/- say he is? Nope. It only says he's been out there on the floor when we were getting outscored.

We have been outscored by our opponents, so there is going to be an overall negative to the +/- values. The team's +/- is is -30. So Jermaine's -33 isn't all that bad.

The utility of the +/- is to lead us to situations and match-ups that work and that don't work.

TheDon points out above that Kevin Durant's +/- is -159. That bad rating doesn't mean Durant is a bad player. It means that he's been on the floor a lot of minutes when the Sonics were overmatched -- which ought to be a surprise to nobody.

Putnam
12-02-2007, 10:58 AM
I agree with Shade that we ought to stop trotting out the +/- as if it proves anything by itself.

It points out facts that require explanation. That's all.

Granger's poor rating demands explanation, since we all know he's a great asset.

Granger is +19 when he is on the floor with Tinsley, Dunleavy, Williams and Foster. But he's played in that combination only 21 minutes.


Granger is -41 when he plays with Tinsley, Dunleavy Murphy and O'Neal, and he has played 63 minutes there.

Most of Granger's minutes (100 of them) have been with Tinsley, Dunleavy, Foster and O'Neal. With that group, He has a +1. Which is positive considering that the team is -30 overall.

So, the eye is drawn to that troublesome lineup with the -41.

Anybody who wishes to explain why this lineup doesn't work and propose alternatives and fixes. The +/- can't explain it, and doesn't claim to.

But the poor, little old +/- statistic has served us faithfully and well just by drawing our atention to that troublesome combination.

N.B. all the values cited here are from www.82games.com (http://www.82games.com).

Putnam
12-02-2007, 11:12 AM
And since this thread is supposed to be about O'Neal, let's consider this.

When O'Neal plays with Tinsley, Dunleavy, Williams and Foster, the Pacers are +27. And that is a combination that has been on the floor only 11 minutes so far this season.

Can you dig it, Cyrus?

The Pacers outscored their opponent by 27 points in less than a quarter while Jermaine O'Neal was on the floor! (So much for the Jermaine-slows-us-down rule. It is true sometimes, but not always.)

If I were getting paid to do this, I think I'd be looking back over the game film, finding those minutes, assessing what we did right and whether we can use that combination more often once O"Neal get healthy. Wouldn't you?

!Pacers-Fan!
12-02-2007, 11:37 AM
J.O. is not a Up-Tempo Type Of Player...They Should Trade Him...And Get A Center Who Is Quick...And A Good Rebounder...

NPFII
12-02-2007, 11:49 AM
About the +/-:
When you are looking with a microscope at which lineups got which scores, you're entering a new realm of local statistics, where you need to take into account MORE factors (in this case - who is the opposition, how tired are the guys, injuries, momentum flows, fould trouble, etc), although you have LESS data.

It would be a bad idea to draw conclusions based on those kinds of statistics.

The major idea behind the accumulative +/- stat is that after a while you have SUFFICIENT data in order to neglect the affects of those local aspects.

IMO there are 2 major missing aspects in the +/- stat, which can't be neglected even after a very large amount of data:
1. OPPOSITION. Sure DG has the worst +/-, but he's always guarding the opponent's best player. ANY OTHER GUY WOULD PROBABLY DO WORSE!
2. Minutes played. The data's got to be NORMALIZED somehow - by mpg, games played, or total minutes (my preference). You just cant compare the +/- of a guy who plays 5 mpg to that of a guy who plays 35.

Bottom line: the +/- stat is interesting, BUT ... drawing any sort of conclusions from it is ... let's say "risky".

Bball
12-02-2007, 12:11 PM
It seems to me the +/- stat is a tool to help confirm what you think you are seeing. IOW... if you notice someone doesn't appear to be helping the team, you take a look at the +/- and see if that bears it out as well.

Or you use it the other way around... Look at the +/- and then keep your eye on players and lineups to see if you notice why their +/- is so good.... or so bad.

-Bball

Putnam
12-12-2007, 04:40 PM
Look who gets the last word on the +/- debate. Or should.


http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers_v2.html


http://www.nba.com/media/playerfile/jim_obrien.jpg Question for Jim O'Brien | Dec. 12, 2007 <HR>Q. How much faith do you put in the plus-minus (http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0708.html) stat? (From Tom in Columbus, Ind.)
A. Just in the pure stat, it’s not as important as combining it with two-man, three-man, four-man, five-man rotations. We are looking always at why it is a plus, why it is a minus. By itself it’s not that important. A combination of players is important. If Player A has a minus 35 we want to find out if a lot of that minus 35 is a result of him playing with a particular other player.

BobbyMac
12-12-2007, 04:45 PM
JO is not the problem....

Putnam
12-12-2007, 04:54 PM
And look who gets the last word on the "JO slows us down" debate. Or should.

(same link as above)

http://www.nba.com/media/playerfile/jermaine_oneal.jpg Question for Jermaine O'Neal | Dec. 10, 2007 <HR>Q. Why do you think the team did so well in your absence and what are you doing to avoid disturbing team chemistry? (From Bruce in San Francisco)
A. I have to piggyback off what the guys have been doing. My return doesn’t change anything; I think it just adds to what we already have. We have a lot of perimeter players that can be played, guys like David Harrison who has really been playing well. And it’s not to disrupt the chemistry of it, it’s more to just add to it and increase the defensive intensity on that end of the floor and score when given the opportunity.

BlueNGold
12-12-2007, 08:45 PM
The ball movement is not good. Ha! The announcers just said the offense was stagnant. I don't know what's going on, but there are a bunch of instances of one on one play. Granger, JO, Dunleavy, Quis...they're all doing it. Offense looks horrible and we're down 14 points early in the 2nd.

Move that Ball!!!

Naptown_Seth
12-13-2007, 08:36 AM
Isn't is just a wonderful, useful stat?
A) gotta see the 5 mans, which I have now for every game but the last 2, you can find the stints where a guy gets a jump. Rush benefitted several weeks ago from being part of a run that was all Tins-Dun-Foster and IIRC JO partially

B) Say what you will, but Rush was part of the package that turned around the Bulls game and then blew it open. Add to it that +/- problem Troy was booted from the game, and that for all the good Danny shows many of us have noted his erratic play and mistakes which leads to his horrible +/- (2nd year in a row) despite playing with the starters, and suddenly it looks like a pretty smart stat.


Danny struggles because he doesn't understand what to do with so many other options on the court with JO's return. Real example, he got on Gordon at one point and they tried to feed him in the post. Not only did he not work to get good position, but when they BALL REVERSED (Tins-JO-Dun IIRC) to refeed from the other side he failed to cross the lane to repost and burn Ben for fronting him. That's how DG can look brilliant and yet be a big problem at the same time. The +/- notes this far better than any other stat.

Once in awhile is one thing, but game after game having a negative +/- sends up a flag.


JOB specifically mentioned the tandem issue in the post-game regarding Rush, something to the effect of "we found out who he works best with and tried to put him in that situation tonight".

Some guys might not be a great shooter, but paired with a hustle rebounder their poor shooting doesn't really hurt and perhaps ends up getting lots of cheap loose ball buckets. Maybe their shooting keeps their defender working and slows him at the other end. There are so many odd or unexpected ways for a player to impact the overall outcome. +/- eliminates all the BS and guesswork regarding the "most important stats".

It says "I don't know why and I don't care why, I just know it happened." Then at that point you try to regress back into the possible reasons, just as JOB mentions. It's the smoke alarm, not the fire inspector.

Naptown_Seth
12-13-2007, 08:56 AM
1. OPPOSITION. Sure DG has the worst +/-, but he's always guarding the opponent's best player. ANY OTHER GUY WOULD PROBABLY DO WORSE!
I disagree that this would stay in. The other 4 starters/main minutes players would also suffer along with him. When Dun gets 30+ minutes and starts next to Danny, yet has a much better +/- it indicates something other than who Danny started the game guarding.

This is the McKey stat, the "little things that help a team win" stat. Quite the opposite of what most opponents of the stat claim it to be (spurious). We all know that PPG is far worse, virtually meaningless without FGAs, FTAs and help from teammates considered. We've just had the "some rebounds are different than others" debate. And who hasn't seen a player lose assist after assist due to fouls on the shooter, missed easy shots, or a second pass that was only available because of the first great pass?


Proponents of +/- all acknowledge the problem areas, primarily WHO you are on the court with and game situations like garbage time. Most users will factor those aspects in (or out) when using the tool.

It's wrong to take a 10 mpg bench guy and assume his +/- would stay the same as a starter. You can't make that comparison. Nor can you really cross compare guys on different teams.

But if a guy starts at SF for 20 games, then a different guy does the same with the same starters and roughly the same schedule, then the comparison takes on value. And even among different positions you start to notice which starters are key, which bench guys are key, and of course what tandems are working.


I know one thing, every single poster on here loves one +/- stat, the Pacers 12 man +/- on any given night.

Naptown_Seth
12-13-2007, 09:06 AM
On JO, going by 82games.com which apparently has the CHI game included, the Pacers have 7 5 man units with a +/- of 10 or more out of their top 20 minutes played units.

JO is part of 4 of those.

There are 5 units at -10. JO is part of 3 of those. This is why JO is at -1. He's been a neutral impact up to this point. IMO he's had some pretty awful games, especially early in the season, which suggests that he's been playing well lately, enough to get himself back to the neutral point. Let's see how much the +/- says he isn't fitting in 10 games from now.

The two biggest problems have been Troy and Danny. They don't just have huge negatives, they even have pretty ugly per48 +/- numbers.

Anthem
12-13-2007, 10:15 AM
The two biggest problems have been Troy and Danny. They don't just have huge negatives, they even have pretty ugly per48 +/- numbers.
The solution for Troy is easy. Don't play him.

Danny, on the other hand, needs minutes for the future. He'll only get better by playing.

rexnom
12-13-2007, 10:20 AM
I am very, very glad that I decided to reserve judgment on JO.

Naptown_Seth
12-13-2007, 04:51 PM
The solution for Troy is easy. Don't play him.

Danny, on the other hand, needs minutes for the future. He'll only get better by playing.
Yep. With Danny and Shawne (and Ike and David, wow, that's quite a list) the key is having a stable situation around them for them to grow in to. I think Prince is a perfect example of how a player benefits from having solid vets around him and a clearly defined role from the get go.

You plant the seed. You can't then shake the flower box, pour a ton of water on it, let it dry out for 3 weeks, transplant it three times, move it to the window, move it back outside, etc and expect it to grow. It's gotta have something to latch onto and establish itself first.


I hate being down on Troy, he came into town with a good attitude, took out that article thanking the fans for the welcome, and clearly he does try. But it's hard to get around the results. I feel the same way about Rush BTW. Every interview with him I end up thinking "what a great all-American kid he is". He's comes across nothing like the spoiled wanna-be star that his rep became after Charlotte/Bickerstaff was done with him.

JayRedd
12-13-2007, 05:46 PM
I think Prince is a perfect example of how a player benefits from having solid vets around him and a clearly defined role from the get go.

Couldn't agree more.

Yes, he may be the unquestionable superstar out there, but without The Revolution, there's no way The Blouses win that game. Plus, I hear it was Dez Dickerson's pancake recipe.

Putnam
12-13-2007, 06:31 PM
Couldn't agree more.

Yes, he may be the unquestionable superstar out there, but without The Revolution, there's no way The Blouses win that game. Plus, I hear it was Dez Dickerson's pancake recipe.



Once again JayRedd treads the fine line between the oblique and the obscure. :thumbup: