PDA

View Full Version : Stats With and Without #7



bnd45
12-01-2007, 04:35 PM
Here are some actual #'s to take into account.

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)

Now to take a look at how our main perimeter guys do with and without Mr. O'Neal:

Granger shoots 47% from the field when JO is out vs. 42% when JO plays. His 3-point shooting goes from 43% w/o to 30% with. Scoring wise, Granger avearges 20 ppg w/o and drops to 17.8 ppg with.

Dunleavy shoots 54% in games w/o JO and 44% with JO. His 3 percentage goes from 50% w/o to 34% with. Dunleavy averages 19.7 ppg w/o JO and just 14.6 ppg with him.

Finally we have Tinsley. His percenatges are pretty much the same but his attempts obviosuly differ. He gets up 17 FG's w/o JO to just 11 FG's with him. Tinsley averages 19.3 ppg w/o JO and that number drops down to 10.2 ppg with him.

andreialta
12-01-2007, 04:57 PM
no doubt JO is a factor to our team. good or bad
i think the only problem we have right now is incorporating JO to the offense, i mean the team basically practiced during summer without JO so they know how to play that way and thus getting them comortable without him

it just takes some time for us to blend in with the offense that has Jermaine O'neal

TheDon
12-01-2007, 05:43 PM
Ya know up until a last year Tinsley was an injury riddled malcontent waste of space, can't distribute the ball (except in small flashes here and there), can't shoot,....fast forward a year later

He's one of the best point guards in the league, clutch, better scorer, would be a good team leader, someone we all enjoy having on the team.

I really don't think that Jermaine O'Neal is a detriment to this team. I don't see how Jermaine can effect somebody's shooting percentages. What, Jermaine comes back and he forces them to take bad shots or better yet miss them? As far as Tinsley taking less shots makes sense, cause you add somebody in who will be taking those shots, and he's said himself he'd rather be creating for his team rather than shooting the ball, he's said himself in a recent article that he thinks he shoots too much. I just don't buy that it's all on Jermaine's shoulders when we lose, just like it's not all because of him when we win.


In the words of Stephen Colbert "Facts change, but my opinion never does." :)

bambam
12-01-2007, 05:57 PM
For the guys that dont think JO causes the offense to bog down...tell me when you will jump on the bandwagon?

After the Pacers are 10-15 games below .500? What would it take to make the people realize he slows this offense down. He still a good player, just not in this offense. He likes to hold the ball...is that what JOBs offense is about?

TheDon
12-01-2007, 06:21 PM
He likes to hold the ball...is that what JOBs offense is about?

In all honesty I can't say I saw him hold onto the ball last night, I saw him drive toward the basket when he caught the ball, he even threw the ball back out after he drew the double team to Tins who than threw it to I think it was either shawne or dunleavy for a wide open 3. There was one play where he had to make something happen cause people were standing around Jermaine said "move" and when that didn't happen he went to work. There was only one JO fadeaway that I can remember. He took 10 shots out of the 92 attempts we had the whole game and 50% shooting through 3 quarters and perfect from the foul line. Dunleavy, Granger, and Murphy all took more shots than him at worse percentages even shawne took the same amount of shots but scored one less than Jermaine did even though Shawne got more free throws which he shot worse than Jermaine from the free throw line.

Phildog
12-01-2007, 07:22 PM
Not enough data yet to make a determination. I agree the preliminaries point to JO pulling us down. I thought he tried to fit in at Seattle and did not take too many shots, did not try to take charge, and made several good plays.

aero
12-01-2007, 08:11 PM
We are a better team without JO. Yeah i said it.

BlueNGold
12-01-2007, 10:35 PM
Stats are nice indicators. The extent to which JO gets healthy is also relevant.

But something else matters so much more.

JO has proven that he cannot *stay* healthy. He is a nice player to have in theory, but he does nothing but upset the team's continuity by missing games and practices...then interrupting the development of the team. The best you can expect from him is to be out 25% of the games and attempt to come back before the playoffs. That's a recipe for failure in the post season.

You need to establish solid rotations where players really become comfortable playing together. This is particularly true when you don't have a tremendously talented player (a top 5 NBA player) on the team.

Anthem
12-01-2007, 10:49 PM
JO has proven that he cannot *stay* healthy.
So has Tinsley.

Arcadian
12-01-2007, 11:19 PM
I don't know if JO fits the system. I want to see him healthy playing with the other players for a while before answering that question.

To me the questions are is he worth the wait and is waiting a long term or short term answer.

This season if we trade JO and make the playoffs we will see threads and threads about how Drew Gordon destroyed us. To be a good playoff team we need an inside presence as the pace will slow down. Our best bet of getting that is JO becoming the player we need him to become.

Having said that though I don't know if hanging on to JO for the short term won't hamper us in finding a player ready to step in when our younger guys mature.

To me keeping JO or not doesn't depend does he fit the system but rather is it in our best intrest two or three seasons down the road.

I'm not in a trade or don't trade JO camp right now. As long as he is in a Pacer uni though I will pull for him to play well.

BlueNGold
12-01-2007, 11:20 PM
So has Tinsley.

He certainly has some history playing in a fraction of the games the last several years. ..and I ain't no fan of his.

...but what do you think of last year? He did play in 72 games. ...and he has yet to miss a game this year.

Shack80
12-02-2007, 12:59 AM
Not been a big fan of the tinman, but he deserves some recognition for last and this year staying healthy, if nothing else.

TheDon
12-02-2007, 01:05 AM
I'm not Anthem and can't speak for him but I took his post as saying that Tinsley was once considered "injury-prone" so there's no reason that Jermaine can't shed that image as well.

BlueNGold
12-02-2007, 01:05 PM
I'm not Anthem and can't speak for him but I took his post as saying that Tinsley was once considered "injury-prone" so there's no reason that Jermaine can't shed that image as well.

Well......let's see it.

JO never reached his potential due to his shoulder injury in Denver...one of the reasons he missed so many games in '05. Prior to that time, JO was a 20-10 player...at the age of 25. Even in his prime years, he has never been as productive....and lost his all star spot in part due to this.

So, I consider the JO we have seen the last few years to be a lesser player due to injury than he would have been. Now, this knee injury may or may not reduce him *further*, but we will have to wait and see on that.

In contrast, injury is not limiting what JT can be. I believe he can still reach his potential...where injury has limited JO from doing so.

JayRedd
12-02-2007, 01:21 PM
I'm not Anthem

Consider yourself fortunate. ;)

idioteque
12-03-2007, 09:59 PM
I'm not Anthem and can't speak for him but I took his post as saying that Tinsley was once considered "injury-prone" so there's no reason that Jermaine can't shed that image as well.

Tinsley's injuries have included a bruised foot, a bruised elbow, and sinus infections. He has had few if any injuries that affect your ability to play basketball longterm.

With JO it's very different. His knee is in terrible, terrible shape and has been chronically injured for the last couple of years. The types of injuries JO has unfortunately incurred are often reoccuring (see Kenyon Martin) and affect your ability to play basketball longterm.

Two totally different situations.

Oneal07
12-04-2007, 02:27 AM
Pacers.com: http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_071203.html


Letís put something to rest, because itís starting to get a little out of hand. This theory the Pacers are a better team without Jermaine O'Neal is based on some seriously flawed logic.
<table align="left" width="65"><tbody><tr><td>http://www.nba.com/media/playerfile/jermaine_oneal.jpg<center><small>O'Neal</small></center></td></tr></tbody></table>
Some would point to the 5-1 record in games heís missed this season as evidence the new system works better in his absence, and claim the 4-8 record when heís played only reinforces that fact.
You are what you are and records donít lie, but this is an example of adding two and two and getting 22.
The fact of the matter is the Pacers havenít really had OíNeal all season long. When heís been on the floor he hasnít been anything close to 100 percent. And J.O. at 50 percent is, well, Mark Blount. The point being, any judgment on OíNealís ability to fit with, and contribute to, the team as constituted under Jim OíBrien, must be withheld until the real J.O. finally stands up.
Given his performance against the Clippers Sunday, when he reported no knee pain for the first time this season and was battling the after-effects of a shoulder stinger from Fridayís game in Seattle, it appears heís getting to his feet. OíNeal scored 20 points with 15 rebounds and the Pacers outscored the Clippers by 23 points when he was on the floor.
So give it some time. That the Pacers have managed to go 9-9 while adapting to a 180-degree change in offensive philosophy and getting relatively limited contributions from their franchise big man is a good thing. Itís safe to assume that, as OíNeal regains his form, the Pacers will only get better. If not, then weíll talk.
But if insist on obsessing about the won-lost record with and without him, consider this: since the beginning of the 2005-06 season, the Cavaliers are 6-3 without LeBron James. Somehow, I doubt this debate is raging in Cleveland.

avoidingtheclowns
12-04-2007, 09:06 AM
And J.O. at 50 percent is, well, Mark Blount.

i like snarky conrad. he's fun.



i suppose the question is: why the hell were we allowing JO to play at 50% if the trainers are supposed to be making the calls this season? why didn't we let him sit until he was ready?

Bball
12-04-2007, 01:43 PM
To Conrad I say the same thing I mentioned in another thread about stats-
If you think you are noticing something on the court you can use certain stats to see if the numbers back up your observations. Using the Lebron stat is skewing the real point.
A. I've not heard anyone point to Lebron to say his style/actions are a harm to the W/L record
B. The sample given is mighty small compared to the sample that the Pacers can use over several seasons.

The elephant in the living room has been the Pacers historically playing better without JO for quite some time. This also was shown on Jeff Sagarin's computer when it stated JO wasn't that key of a player the summer we gave JO his large contract. Therefore, looking at the stats to see if they also show this makes some sense. If you want to blame the way the stats have played out on something, it needs to be deeper than just using the Lebron stat.

Few who talk about the W/L stat with or w/o JO are solely focusing on the stat to reach their conclusion. They are using the stat as further evidence to bolster their observation from watching the games.

-Bball