PDA

View Full Version : Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?



idioteque
12-01-2007, 01:00 PM
Get your attention? :p

Before you go crazy, read about the context I am talking about.

When Jackson was here it was oft-discussed on this board that the fortunes of the Pacers were tied to the fortunes of Jackson. There was a whole thread dedicated to this when Jackson was with the Pacers and I wish I could dig it up, although I've been having trouble finding it.

"Dunleavy went into Wednesday's game at Portland averaging 22.4 points, 6.4 rebounds and 2.7 assists and shooting 53 percent in victories this season. He's only averaging 11.0 points and shooting 40 percent in losses
"When I get in the flow offensively, it's pretty clear we're a good team," Dunleavy said. "When I don't, we struggle. Why that happens, I don't know. My approach is the same every night. I think it's pretty clear we're a good team when I can get my hands on the ball."

That quote is from a recent Indystar article. Are the Pacers fortunes now tied to Dunleavy in a similar way that it could be argued they were tied to Jackson during a portion of his tenure here?

When Dunleavy shows up and plays aggressively the Pacers usually win. However some nights he just doesn't get involved in the offense. Last night was kind of an outlier because he did get involved but he did get involved, but played poorly and the Pacers lost. If Dunleavy takes 15 shots like he did last night, he usually will make more than 6 of them.

However I'd rather have a game like this from Dunleavy than one in which he gets involved but plays poorly, because more often than not when he gets involved he will play well. When Dunleavy plays passively that's what really dooms the Pacers.

Stephen's situation was a little more complicated. Sometimes he would try too hard on the offensive end, with erratic drives and poor shot selection. He would play poor defense and try to make it up with great offense (that turned out to be terrible) in his best impersonation of a playground legend. If Stephen played the slightly better than average defense he was capable of, and controlled his shot selection and deferred when necessary, the Pacers were in a good position to win with him.

This isn't meant to get into a discussion of why Jack left Indy or whatever but I think it's an interesting idea to ponder.

andreialta
12-01-2007, 01:04 PM
I still think, Dun takes more intelligent shot. tho SJAX is just really stronger than him, i would still rather have him. Dun makes a lot of good plays that run the team, some u dont see on the stat sheet. the boxing out or giving the extra pass..

he had a lot of good passes during the sonics game. SJAX only does this when he is on his ZONE. his Unstoppable ZONE . hehe

idioteque
12-01-2007, 01:06 PM
I still think, Dun takes more intelligent shot. tho SJAX is just really stronger than him, i would still rather have him. Dun makes a lot of good plays that run the team, some u dont see on the stat sheet. the boxing out or giving the extra pass..

he had a lot of good passes during the sonics game. SJAX only does this when he is on his ZONE. his Unstoppable ZONE . hehe

I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?

andreialta
12-01-2007, 01:10 PM
I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?

i guess you could kinda say that now! but were still only 17 games into the season. JO is not himself.. Again dunleavy really isn't the kind of player that needs to score 30. he is what he is, a complimentary player which should compliment our team.

i think the whenever Dunleavy takes more than 16 shots, the defense focus on him a bit during the 2nd half and thus giving openings to Danny and Tins to do whatever they want. thats just my take on it. im no expert! hehe

idioteque
12-01-2007, 01:13 PM
i guess you could kinda say that now! but were still only 17 games into the season. JO is not himself.. Again dunleavy really isn't the kind of player that needs to score 30. he is what he is, a complimentary player which should compliment our team.

i think the whenever Dunleavy takes more than 16 shots, the defense focus on him a bit during the 2nd half and thus giving openings to Danny and Tins to do whatever they want. thats just my take on it. im no expert! hehe

I'm not saying score 30. I mean saying he scores like 16-25 or so points instead of like 8 or 11. That is the difference between having second or third option numbers compared to having 7th man numbers.

Young
12-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Yeah I think their roles are similar.

Although it's kind of hard to judge.

This team is still finding there way. When everyone is healthy, I think that Mike is our 3rd or 4th important player.

Jackson was here through some tough times. From suspensions to injuries his role changed a lot. I think if we would have had a team that had no suspensions and nagging injuries to key players Jackson would have been more efficient in his production.

But yes I think that we need Mike to play well to win. There is no doubt about it that Mike Dunleavy is very important to the Pacers having success this year.

ajbry
12-01-2007, 04:26 PM
I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?

I'm glad you clarified that otherwise I was ready to go off.

But you're absolutely right. Mike is extremely similar in terms of Jack in this aspect. Whenever they play well, their team wins a large portion of the time. When they play poorly, their team is likely to lose.

Anthem
12-01-2007, 09:36 PM
I'm glad you clarified that otherwise I was ready to go off.

But you're absolutely right. Mike is extremely similar in terms of Jack in this aspect. Whenever they play well, their team wins a large portion of the time. When they play poorly, their team is likely to lose.
And they're streaky as all get-out.

granger33
12-02-2007, 06:34 AM
We both depended/depend on them on the offensive end. Jackson may put up better numbers, but Jacksons shot selection Here in Indiana was quite horrible most of the time. Im glad SJAX is playin well in GS...but right now im happy with MDJ

Putnam
12-02-2007, 08:56 AM
It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't.

This is true of every player on the roster. On every roster. Of every team. In every sport. Since the beginning of time.

Jackson's reputation is freighted with so much baggage, there's no point in comparing his game with Dunleavy's. Why not ask whether Dunleavy is the new John Long?

!Pacers-Fan!
12-02-2007, 10:40 AM
Nope...Dunleavy still needs to grow more...

NPFII
12-02-2007, 11:33 AM
I see the similarity between the team success with Dun and with Jax, but IMO there's a HUGE difference, which makes all the difference.

When Jax was playing well it meant that he was succeeding with his 1on1 drives, and his shot was falling, even on "bad" shots. The rest of the team were not really involved.
However, when Dun is playing well it reflects the team game being played, movement without the ball, ball movement, and inevitably (IMO) - shots falling.

That's a BIG difference.

Anthem
12-02-2007, 01:09 PM
The rest of the team were not really involved.
I'm happy to have Dunleavy, and don't want to get into a Jack-vs-Dun debate, but Jack was actually a pretty good passer. When he was here, he moved the ball better than anybody not named Tinsley.

Stephen Jackson
12-03-2007, 02:59 AM
No, I'm way better then Mike Dunleavy.

idioteque
12-03-2007, 10:54 AM
This is true of every player on the roster. On every roster. Of every team. In every sport. Since the beginning of time.

Jackson's reputation is freighted with so much baggage, there's no point in comparing his game with Dunleavy's. Why not ask whether Dunleavy is the new John Long?

Jackson's game and his reputation are two different things. This is meant to be a technical discussion of his skills rather than a re-hash debate about his reputation. I am sick of it, and probably you and everyone else on this board are as well.

And you're missing my point completely. Do you really think we were that better off last year if Josh Powell came in and got 4 and 2?

Elgin56
12-03-2007, 05:06 PM
Jackson's game and his reputation are two different things. This is meant to be a technical discussion of his skills rather than a re-hash debate about his reputation. I am sick of it, and probably you and everyone else on this board are as well.

And you're missing my point completely. Do you really think we were that better off last year if Josh Powell came in and got 4 and 2?


Why start a thread on this if you are tired of it? Jackson and Dun are two completely different in their approach to the game and to make a comparison of the two is a little disengenous. IMO

Hicks
12-03-2007, 05:27 PM
Why start a thread on this if you are tired of it? Jackson and Dun are two completely different in their approach to the game and to make a comparison of the two is a little disengenous. IMO

Doesn't mean he started it to compare their reps either.....

idioteque
12-03-2007, 06:07 PM
Why start a thread on this if you are tired of it? Jackson and Dun are two completely different in their approach to the game and to make a comparison of the two is a little disengenous. IMO

I am tired of hearing the milk drinker versus bad boy argument.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.

My point was, basically, despite their contrasting styles (acknowledged in the first post, and by style i mean style of playing basketball, NOT choice of recreational activity, dress, music taste, or another of the sort) they are both x-factor type players for the Pacers, and their play is/was often the difference between a win and a loss.

Elgin56
12-03-2007, 09:57 PM
I am tired of hearing the milk drinker versus bad boy argument.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.

My point was, basically, despite their contrasting styles (acknowledged in the first post, and by style i mean style of playing basketball, NOT choice of recreational activity, dress, music taste, or another of the sort) they are both x-factor type players for the Pacers, and their play is/was often the difference between a win and a loss.


Fine if that is your point of this thread, however I feel like the thread was meant to stir the pot by it's title. Now if you had titled the thread differently maybe I could agree with your point on how they both affected the outcome of the games.

Elgin56
12-03-2007, 10:00 PM
Doesn't mean he started it to compare their reps either.....


What is one suppose to assume with the thread title he chose to use, if it was not just to stir the pot?

Hicks
12-03-2007, 10:16 PM
What is one suppose to assume with the thread title he chose to use, if it was not just to stir the pot?

If you only read the title, then it looks that way. But when you read the post he's actually talking basketball.

Naptown_Seth
12-08-2007, 02:08 PM
I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?
Yeah, I think you have a point here. One additional factor is that the Pacers now have 2-3 other "if they get going" types. Tinsley, who used to be another "live by/die by" player until last year, Granger, and Williams. 33 and 4 are both youthfully streaky but can take over games at both ends at times.

I think more winning will show up as those 2 plus Dun find real consistency. And of course it won't hurt to have JO start to blend in better as he gets actual PT with the current mix. Tins is going to be there I think, he's past the point of "will he show up". His shot is unreliable, but his passing and offensive drive has yet to skip a game, at the very least in the last 10 or so.


Back to Jack/Dun, hard not to notice that they are both your starting SG, occasionally swinging to SF, and often the #2 pivot/playmaker on the court. Jack often was the main creator after the JO post, including being the main dribble drive for a score guy. Dun is in a somewhat similar role. Both have been streaky 3pt shooters, though Dun is finally dialed in this season.

Same type of role, somewhat similar types of players (skill set/level), and an apparently similar impact on the team. I know I always want the ball to hit Dun's hands and felt similarly when Jack was here. If Dun keeps up his play this year it looks like the Pacers may yet have a shot to get even on the GS trade (pending Ike's return to match Al in GS).



I'm happy to have Dunleavy, and don't want to get into a Jack-vs-Dun debate, but Jack was actually a pretty good passer. When he was here, he moved the ball better than anybody not named Tinsley.
I agree. And as I watched the PHX and ORL games I literally was thinking the exact same thing about Mike. I had yet to read this thread either. Mike is clearly to me the 2nd best passer on the team. He hit Danny mid-stride for that one dunk (play of the game for FSN) that was a thread the needle surprise. It turned a non-advantage situation, Danny appeared to not be ahead of the defense, into a fast-break dunk in an instant.

Also right now the #1 pairing with JO is Dunleavy. Those 2 pass the ball between each other extremely well and work the PnR great. Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Jack and JO previously. And it's not dump and dish for the 3 either. In both cases it's give and go stuff, roll to the rim, lane cuts, etc, rather than boring 2-4 3pt bomb/post score exchanges.

Different coach, different SG, yet often identical plays.

Naptown_Seth
12-08-2007, 02:21 PM
Jackson's reputation is freighted with so much baggage, there's no point in comparing his game with Dunleavy's. Why not ask whether Dunleavy is the new John Long?
You mean the guy who is replaced by a stud top 12 SG draft pick in 2 years? Do you know something I don't? I was kinda hoping for playoffs this year.

Plus Long did not impact the team in a similar way, nor was his role the same despite being the SG for a .500 caliber team.


And the point is that guys like Tins or JO can put up similar numbers in wins and losses. People cite that as proof that they aren't impacting the game, but I call bunk on that. It's just that it's a team game and you need BOTH your anchor guys (always give the same) and your "key" players to be on that night.

It's the nature of team sports that create these odd "key player" situations and eliminate the simpleness of "star does good = win" results that makes them (team sports) so intriguing to follow and enjoy.

Dez Junuts
01-07-2008, 10:14 PM
Problem with Dunleavy is not passing the ball around; its that he is still not aggressive enough.

Jackson, whether his shots are falling or not, is consistently aggressive.

Dunleavy has a notion of being a passer just because he "swings" the ball around, while Jackson's passes actually would lead to plays. Often, Dunleavy would waste precious shot clock time.

-Mike Dunleavy's problem in Golden State

ABADays
01-08-2008, 01:17 PM
OMG - the thread title burned my retina's out. Could someone call me and read me the posts?