PDA

View Full Version : Pacers-Hornets Post Game thread



Coop
12-28-2008, 09:19 PM
*Waits for the "at least we played them tough" excuse*

MiaDragon
12-28-2008, 09:23 PM
or every other excuse thrown around.

jhutt50
12-28-2008, 09:25 PM
I actually thought we defended that final play pretty well. We didn't let Paul get a shot off when he had been killing us on the pick and roll earlier, and David West's shot wasn't wide open. I think Hibbert should have been in at the end of the game, and JOB didn't save any timeouts at the end, where we could have used one to advance up the court for a better shot than Jack jacking up a half court one.

CableKC
12-28-2008, 09:26 PM
Why is it that we can't try to slow down the offense and burn some clock when we take a small lead into the end of the game?

I was thinking of that with 3 minutes left especially after Jack went down....and was sort of hoping that Diener would come in......Marquis would switch off to CP3 with BRush coming in with Granger in the Backcourt. I'm not blaming Jack for this loss....but it was obvious that CP3 would take over at the end of the game. Jack did his best to keep up with him...but he wasn't contesting nor really jumping to try to make it harder for CP3 at the end....who essentially took over the game at the end.

Justin Tyme
12-28-2008, 09:26 PM
Another exciting and entertaining........................... LOSS.

Pacemaker
12-28-2008, 09:27 PM
As I stated on the game thread: How about tanking? Its about time. We will always be on the verge of making the playoffs and some stinky picks

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 09:27 PM
How about the "I didn't see the game, so I have no idea what happened'

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE GAME WASN'T SHOWN LOCALLY ON NBATV, I know last year in the same situation the game was shown locally

Coop
12-28-2008, 09:31 PM
Buck, for future reference, check out Justin.tv. Tonights stream was one of the best I've had all year. The quality may not be the best, but its better than nothing.

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 09:31 PM
Just saw the highlights, that was a very tough shot that West hit, and this was a game when it would have ben really nice to have had one more timeout.

Thanks Heartland, I'll check that out for sure next time

able
12-28-2008, 09:33 PM
Pat, did you try the online version ? you are entitled to it and i can help yout to prevent the blackout (i think ) :) just email me :D

As for my opinion? Bad coaching, fouling out Hibbert with 5 fouls, what on earth is Nessy doing on the court ? and if you know you are out of timouts, at least give them something to work with in the last one you use, KNOWING you get the ball back.

The more i watch the more convinced i am that JOB is not the right man in the right place

vnzla81
12-28-2008, 09:38 PM
Pat, did you try the online version ? you are entitled to it and i can help yout to prevent the blackout (i think ) :) just email me :D

As for my opinion? Bad coaching, fouling out Hibbert with 5 fouls, what on earth is Nessy doing on the court ? and if you know you are out of timouts, at least give them something to work with in the last one you use, KNOWING you get the ball back.

The more i watch the more convinced i am that JOB is not the right man in the right place

agreed. but at the same time I think he is the man to tank the season a get and nice pick:dance:

BlueNGold
12-28-2008, 09:42 PM
Turnovers and 4th quarter D appear to be the culprits again. Another sign this team cannot handle the pace on offense and do not put very good defenders on the floor. ...but Troy got his numbers in yet another loss. .......yawn.

Dr. Awesome
12-28-2008, 09:43 PM
Every game we lose like this is a step closer to Obie being fired - so at least some good came out of it.

BlueNGold
12-28-2008, 09:45 PM
Anyone know if McRoberts was available?

D-BONE
12-28-2008, 09:46 PM
We did cover Paul decently on the last play, but it took like three or our guys chasing him around to contain him, which allowed for a tough, but relatively uncontested shot by West.

I really appreciate that we are playing hard, but we aren't going to pull out any games unless our defense overall improves.

It seemed to me that throughout the second quarter the Hornets were getting tons of wide open Js and they just weren't converting. Too wide open. Not conested. We were fortunate they didn't hit more.

I also thought last foul on Posey against Granger that resulted in our last 2 points from the line looked like a bailout. Thought it was a clean block from behind, although the justinTV feed wasn't completely clear.

Kuq_e_Zi91
12-28-2008, 09:49 PM
Anyone know if McRoberts was available?

It looked like he was dressed on the sidelines.

vnzla81
12-28-2008, 09:53 PM
like I said before, tank the season and do like Memphis did last year, the pacers for the firts time in years have some pieces of value either players that other teams want and expiring contracts, trade marquis for another good player and draft picks, we already know he is not coming back, the same with maceo and Rasho, also let the rookies play to see what they have.They need to get a nice draft pick to get better, there is not way the pacers are going to sign a good free agent next year or the one after.tank the season get a nice draft pick and maybe with that convince Mark jackson to come and coach the pacers

esabyrn333
12-28-2008, 09:54 PM
I don't see a reason to fire Obie during the season. I personally like a tough defensive minded team that plays more organized ball. But firing Obie will not slove our problems if we are going to let him go wait till the season is over.

We are fighting and we are losing close games. I see this as a positive. It comes with rebuilding. We keep seeing flashes of nice play from Roy & Rush. I believe we will start winning more and more of these close games as the season goes on. Next year I really see this team being dangerous.

pwee31
12-28-2008, 10:04 PM
After 30 games, we've won 10. It can't get much worse can it?

Quis
12-28-2008, 10:13 PM
We're on pace to go 27-55.

Spirit
12-28-2008, 10:16 PM
I'm glad we're terrible.. we need a high pick to ever be serious contenders.

grace
12-28-2008, 10:19 PM
After 30 games, we've won 10. It can't get much worse can it?

Sure it can. Just ask the Lions.

As for the game being local on NBA-TV I got it, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that I have League Pass. :dunno:

Bball
12-28-2008, 10:20 PM
I didn't get to see the game either but the interesting thing is, we don't have to watch the games to know the gist of what happens anymore-
Pacers get lead
Pacers lose lead
Game is tight in 4th qtr
Pacers can't stop opposing team meanwhile their own shots start coming up short and ballhandling gets careless
Opposing team pulls out win

-Bball

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 10:22 PM
Sure it can. Just ask the Lions.

As for the game being local on NBA-TV I got it, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that I have League Pass. :dunno:

I've got LP. Do you have Brighthouse - Carmel

Justin Tyme
12-28-2008, 10:24 PM
The Pacers have played 30 games now with a record of 10-20.(33%)

The Pacers have given up 100 or more points in 20 of those games to their opponents while only winning 2 of those 20 games.(10% winning)

They have held their opponent to 10 games of 99 points or less while winning 8 of those games.(80% winning)

Hum, now lets think about this for a moment. You win 80% of your games allowing your opponent to 99 or less points while you win only 10% of your games by allowing your opponents to score 100 or more points.

With this info in mind, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out in order to win games you have to keep your opponents score at 99 or less points to win. You achieve that by playing that thing that seems to be foreign to JO'B system called DEFENSE!

How more obvious is it that playing a shootout run n gun game with no defense leads to LOST GAMES? Surely to goodness Bird can see this if JO'B can't or is too inflexible to change. Your call Bird or maybe it's the call of ownership who said they were going to be more involved in the Pacers. Somebody at the top has to make the call or this franchise is in store for more heartbreaking end of the game losses or exciting and entertaining losses. Anyway you cut it, slice it, or dice it a loss is still a loss. There is no column in the standings for moral victories or entertaining/exciting losses.

Trader Joe
12-28-2008, 10:26 PM
O'Brien doesn't deserve this job.

idioteque
12-28-2008, 10:27 PM
10-20 is not anything to brag about, but my God, this is a rebuilding team and anyone who expected us to make and advance in the playoffs this year is/was crazy. 10-20 is not any sign of uttermost futility, really to complain at such a level about it just shows how used to success we are as fans of what is a really good franchise historically. I actually "thought" this team could win 45 games but I'm always in a sunshiner/optimistic mood at the beginning of the year.

We're in the first 30 games of Year #1 of what will probably be a 2 or 3 year rebuilding product and everyone is already freaking out that we can't beat a top tier team like New Orleans. I realize that it's frustrating, but it's called growing pains and that's part of rebuilding.

If the Pacers are your complete world and you're impatient, better take up a hobby because we aren't going to be incredibly competitive this year.

grace
12-28-2008, 10:28 PM
I've got LP. Do you have Brighthouse - Carmel

DIRECTV

CableKC
12-28-2008, 10:28 PM
I will point out the only positive in the game......Hibbert went 19/6 while JO'B ACTUALLY let him play out the 5 fouls. On the other hand, he got 5 fouls in 18 minutes of play.

I'm glad that JO'B is allowing Hibbert to actually reach that 5 foul limit before checking him out for the rest of the game. Over the last 5 games, he has averaged 11ppg/4rpg while shooting 60% on 8 FGA over 17 minutes.

One more thing, I really wonder if the recent increase in minutes for Hibbert and Rasho's decrease in minutes is for TPTB to determine whether he is ready to take over the 3rd Big Man role this season so that we can move Rasho before the Trade Deadline for some help. I know it's a stretch....but Rasho seems to be a good finisher and fits into what we want to do...if we could keep Rasho out of the game for the 1st half....then we could have Rasho finish out the game. The problem is that he doesn't seem to have a big enough gastank to keep up with the offense/defense for an entire 4 QTRs.

We have obvious flaws in our game....and needs to be addressed somehow....if there is some interest in Rasho and Marquis and they could somehow be moved to fix those problems, then I can see them being moved before too long.

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 10:45 PM
O'Brien doesn't deserve this job.

Yeah, he is probably to good of a coach to coach this team

grace
12-28-2008, 10:47 PM
Yeah, he is probably to good of a coach to coach this team

Make Bird coach them.

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 10:51 PM
JOB said it was one of the best games they have played in a very long time and we defended great on that last play.

LoneGranger33
12-28-2008, 10:52 PM
10-20.

If we continue to "perform" at this rate, we will finish with 27 or 28 wins - less than anyone on PD predicted in the preseason thread.

Does anyone think this team is overachieving?

Pacers#1Fan
12-28-2008, 10:57 PM
You know all the players have to be pissed as hell. These close losses are ridiculous!

In the words of the Beatles... "Here comes the sun"

2009/10
Rush and Roy have a year under their belts.
Dun is (hopefully) back and completely healthy.
McBob has more time to develop and possibly takes strides.
Danny will come of his best season statistically with that infamous "chip on the shoulder"
And here's the big one... KILLER draft pic to help continue to build on.

OakMoses
12-28-2008, 10:58 PM
If the Pacers are your complete world and you're impatient, better take up a hobby because we aren't going to be incredibly competitive this year.

Actually, I think the Pacers are incredibly competitive this year in everything but the win column.

Yes, it could be worse. You could be a Clippers, T-Wolves, Wizards, Kings, Warriors, or Bobcats fan. I'd argue that we're both better right now and are better moving forward than any of those teams. Also, if New York strikes out in the 2010 FA market, you could add them to the list.

UncleBuck - keep fighting the good fight. You're dead right about O'Brien.

mildlysane
12-28-2008, 11:02 PM
As bad as it seems, a missed shot here or there by a few opponents, and we are on top of the World and the talk of the NBA. I guess that is why it is so frustrating. Realistically, we are where we should be, but the glimpses of what could be are just agonizing.

Bball
12-28-2008, 11:04 PM
As bad as it seems, a missed shot here or there by a few opponents, and we are on top of the World and the talk of the NBA.


If we played some defense maybe some of those made shots would turn into missed shots. As it is, we're allowing teams to have their way as we melt away late in the games.

Kaufman
12-28-2008, 11:08 PM
Does anyone remember what approximately our record was 30 games into the year the year Larry Brown stepped in after Bob Hill was let go?

Roy Munson
12-28-2008, 11:10 PM
Yeah, he is probably to good of a coach to coach this team

An inordinate number of close losses is a clear sign of bad end-of-game coaching.

MrSparko
12-28-2008, 11:17 PM
An inordinate number of close losses is a clear sign of bad end-of-game coaching.

What about the fact that Hornets had something like 5 out of the top 6 players talent wise on the court tonight.

OakMoses
12-28-2008, 11:25 PM
Does anyone remember what approximately our record was 30 games into the year the year Larry Brown stepped in after Bob Hill was let go?

13-17 after 30 games in Larry Brown's first year.

Bball
12-28-2008, 11:28 PM
We're not comparing Jim OBrien with Larry Brown are we?

Bball
12-28-2008, 11:32 PM
An inordinate number of close losses is a clear sign of bad end-of-game coaching.


What adds to this and gives this line of thought a lot of weight is the number of leads we've allowed to dwindle.

It's not like we've overachieved, slowed the game down, and then gave ourselves a chance to win at the end and just came up short. We've had significant leads and given them (and momentum away) usually to all of a sudden NEED a basket to keep hope alive. ...rinse and repeat...

This is now a worrisome trend.

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 11:35 PM
An inordinate number of close losses is a clear sign of bad end-of-game coaching.

I disagree, coaching becomes less important and talent becomes more important at the end of close games. O'Brien is doing a great keeping this team in games every night, the problem isn't coaching (if it weren't for good coaching we would be getting beat bad on most nights) the problem is lack of closers both offensively and defensively.

Pacers were 17-24 midway through January during Brown's first year - they lost a ton of close games (no I'm not comparing that team or coach to anything, only stating a fact

OakMoses
12-28-2008, 11:41 PM
An inordinate number of close losses is a clear sign of bad end-of-game coaching.


What about the fact that Hornets had something like 5 out of the top 6 players talent wise on the court tonight.


I disagree, coaching becomes less important and talent becomes more important at the end of close games. O'Brien is doing a great keeping this team in games every night, the problem isn't coaching (if it weren't for good coaching we would be getting beat bad on most nights) the problem is lack of closers both offensively and defensively.


Sparko and UB have an excellent point here. Think back on all the close games lately. Now name one time when the best player on the court at the end of the game has been a Pacer.

Dece
12-28-2008, 11:46 PM
Against which team would Granger be the best player on the court? Honestly, I'd believe that is never the case. Kevin Martin vs. Granger? ... some have argued Granger over Caron, but I'd disagree, and Gilbert is the number 1 there when he gets back, hmm... Andris Biedrins vs. Granger? Really a pretty tough question.

Coop
12-28-2008, 11:50 PM
Against which team would Granger be the best player on the court? Honestly, I'd believe that is never the case. Kevin Martin vs. Granger? ... some have argued Granger over Caron, but I'd disagree, and Gilbert is the number 1 there when he gets back, hmm... Andris Biedrins vs. Granger? Really a pretty tough question.

Seriously?

New York
Philadelphia
Chicago
Charlotte
OKC (Granger is more well-rounded than Durant)
Golden State
Sacramento
Memphis

Those are the obvious ones IMO. Others are arguable.

Had Granger been picked in the top 6-7 picks as he was projected when he came out, people would be talking about him emerging as the NBA's newest superstar. Since he was picked at 17 though, fans just see a guy scoring a lot of points on a bad team and assume he's padding stats. He never got the hype and publicity of a high pick player therefore is underestimated by many around the NBA and even fans of his own team.

imawhat
12-28-2008, 11:55 PM
I would rarely call it bad end-of-game coaching. If you guys want to blame it on that, blame it on the odd substitution patterns earlier in the 2nd half that leave our players exhausted.

I was at the game tonight. It was a really good game, and it's too bad we lost.

Chris Paul burned us on several pick and rolls, but we FINALLY defended it correctly on that last play. He just made a very good play and West got a good look.

If we want to point at anything tonight, it should be the horrendous defense that Marquis and Jarrett played. They are both getting consistently out-of-place on the weak side. It's not even penetration that's killing us. They just get out of stance and aren't quick enough to recover when needed.


Roy: He would've fouled out immediately had he been put back in. We were playing pnr defense incorrectly, but Paul would've destroyed Roy, like he did when he picked up his fourth foul. Still, he played pretty well after the first two minutes of the first quarter. I was very happy with his play.

Danny scored a pretty quiet 34.

Troy Murphy is looking much, much better than he did last year.

Jeff Foster needs way less minutes to stay effective. Not sure what happened with him.

Would like to see Rush subbed for Daniels, not Danny. Granger and Brandon need a lot more minutes together.

We may've won this with TJ. Can't wait to see the full squad.

Infinite MAN_force
12-28-2008, 11:59 PM
geez all the doom and gloom makes me want to stay away from this place sometimes after losses.

Maybe Im just a person who likes to focus on the positive, but I see Granger consistently performing like a legitimate first option, and Hibbert's play recently has been very impressive. Sure, we are losing, but I see hope for the future. Im also fairly sure Jarret Jack should never be in the game at the end, and having TJ Ford would have probably been the difference in the last two games. Than everyone would be all happy go lucky talking about 50 win seasons again, its funny to watch the emotional pendulum swing on this forum.

So we are losing, at least we have a chance to add that final piece with a better draft pick, Id be pretty happy with Griffen or Jordan Hill. or... Maybe the team gets it together, interesting how that ECF team from 94 got off to a similarly bad start, and Im guessing they hadn't had the injury issues nor having played the toughest schedule in the NBA thus far. Whatever, Im prepared for either scenario, the fact is the teams rebuilding and you just look for the positive in games like this, why is that so hard?

rebuilding people! whats the problem? stop whining about Obrien for gods sake. Nobody's talking about Hibbert scoring 19 points in 17 minutes... not to mention his fairly consistent play in the last few games minus the fouls. I want more of that in post game threads. more actual game stuff. especially since I couldn't watch it...

Shade
12-29-2008, 12:08 AM
Someone please tell Jim that this is not college, and players in fact have six fouls to give, not five.

K THX BAI

Roy Munson
12-29-2008, 12:08 AM
I disagree, coaching becomes less important and talent becomes more important at the end of close games. O'Brien is doing a great keeping this team in games every night, the problem isn't coaching (if it weren't for good coaching we would be getting beat bad on most nights) the problem is lack of closers both offensively and defensively.

Pacers were 17-24 midway through January during Brown's first year - they lost a ton of close games (no I'm not comparing that team or coach to anything, only stating a fact

Managing timeouts.

Controlling the flow of the game with timeouts.

Maintaining players' composure.

Fouling strategy.

Offense/Defense substitutions.

Defensive strategy.

Out-of-Bounds strategy and plays.

These (and many more things) are things that a good end-of-game coach controls to his advantage.

Your contention that it's all about who has the best players assumes that there is no coach on the sideline directing the show. If you think it's just about who has the best players, then I don't think you've played much, or coached much basketball. There is a TON of things that a good coach does at the end of a game.

(in today's game I didn't see JOB do any of them).

For the Pacers, there is a very definite pattern of getting outcoached in the closing minutes of games.

Infinite MAN_force
12-29-2008, 12:09 AM
Seriously?

New York
Philadelphia
Chicago
Charlotte
OKC (Granger is more well-rounded than Durant)
Golden State
Sacramento
Memphis

Those are the obvious ones IMO. Others are arguable.

Had Granger been picked in the top 6-7 picks as he was projected when he came out, people would be talking about him emerging as the NBA's newest superstar. Since he was picked at 17 though, fans just see a guy scoring a lot of points on a bad team and assume he's padding stats. He never got the hype and publicity of a high pick player therefore is underestimated by many around the NBA and even fans of his own team.


You are right on the money here. In fact, it is the most prevalent here on this forum. It amazes me that Danny Granger is most undervalued HERE, on a pacers site. All these players who are supposedly so much more talented than Danny are not producing as much as Danny. Why? Best player on a bad team? I don't buy it, not one bit. I guess that makes Kevin Durant a pretty untalented player too. Its silly, I mean just recently didn't he have like two 40plus point games in like the span of a week? Hell he scored 14 of his 34 in the fourth quarter tonight, hit two huge free throws, and CONTINUES to improve. How about his assist numbers in the last 10-12 games? been getting 4 or 5 assists a game and making slick passes now for some time.

What else does the guy have to do? Other teams announcers talk better about Danny than pacers fans.

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 12:22 AM
Nice crowd tonight. I really liked it. Diener, Murph, and of course Danny had a great night.

Roy Munson
12-29-2008, 12:24 AM
What else does the guy have to do?

That's easy...WIN. The best measure of a great player is that he makes his team win. So far Granger is a GOOD player, but he hasn't crossed the line to being a GREAT player because his team loses 2/3's of it's games.

Same for Durant. He's not a GREAT player yet. He has real good skills and can do a lot of things....but one thing that he can't do yet is win.

esabyrn333
12-29-2008, 12:36 AM
Everyone needs to learn to enjoy the game and not worry about win, lose record and enjoy the development of this young team. We are competitive and we are developing into a team that is going to be very good agian in a couple of years.

To me this is the time when real fans are made. Its easy to be a fan when everything is great. How many people loved the Colts when through the Jack Treudeau years and got there hearts ripped out through the Jeff George era How many days can a guy hold out....enjoyed the Don Majikowski time then watched John Harbough and the comback colts almost shock the world and IMO caused the NFL to bring in instant replay. I know alot of my old highschool buddies that talked alot of crap with there cowboys jerseys or 49ers Jersey's that are all on the band wagon now.

My point is embrace the loses and the pain now because it will make the wins in the future much sweeter

Bball
12-29-2008, 12:45 AM
Everyone needs to learn to enjoy the game and not worry about win, lose record and enjoy the development of this young team. We are competitive and we are developing into a team that is going to be very good agian in a couple of years.

To me this is the time when real fans are made. Its easy to be a fan when everything is great. How many people loved the Colts when through the Jack Treudeau years and got there hearts ripped out through the Jeff George era How many days can a guy hold out....enjoyed the Don Majikowski time then watched John Harbough and the comback colts almost shock the world and IMO caused the NFL to bring in instant replay. I know alot of my old highschool buddies that talked alot of crap with there cowboys jerseys or 49ers Jersey's that are all on the band wagon now.

My point is embrace the loses and the pain now because it will make the wins in the future much sweeter

I don't think you have to worry about the fans in this discussion falling off any bandwagons. This is pretty much the last of the Mohicans here. Some may be more accepting or understanding of the spate of defeats than others, but I don't there's many who have delusions of a deep NBA playoff run this season. I'm not sure there are any sunshiners left. A true sunshiner to me was always someone totally disconnected from reality who'd predict wonderous things for a flawed team and then eventually disappear when the team continually failed to meet their lofty expectations.

Dece
12-29-2008, 12:50 AM
New York -- Got me here
Philadelphia -- Got to be kidding, Iggy and Brand are both superior.
Chicago -- Rose, while not better right now, is quite good and anyone would rather him
Charlotte -- I'll concede this one
OKC -- I think 9 GM's out of 10 would take Durant over Granger, but would agree Granger is currently better
Golden State -- Beidrins is better, plain and simple.
Sacramento -- Kevin Martin is an extremely good ball player, scores with amazing efficiency... if Granger is better, it's not by much
Memphis -- OJ Mayo in the same lines as Rose. Kid's a baller


So... we definitely have the best player verse 2 teams in the league. Go us.

Coop
12-29-2008, 12:53 AM
I agree with Bball. I highly doubt there are any bandwagoners left around here.

On an unrelated note, I have a lot of respect for all the posters that are left on this forum. Our team has endured hardships in the past decade that some franchises haven't experienced in their entire existance. The fans that have stuck through it all are the ones that will be rewarded the most down the road when things are turned around. Sure, we may not agree on every topic, and some of us may unnerve each other. In the end though, we are all fans of the same team with the same goal in mind. One of these days, we'll look back on these trying seasons and be grateful that we buckled down and rode it out during the storm.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 12:54 AM
Yeah, he is probably to good of a coach to coach this team

I'd like you to justify the decision for HIbbert to not play at all down with four minutes left after the tremendous play he had been giving us earlier.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 12:55 AM
Someone please tell Jim that this is not college, and players in fact have six fouls to give, not five.

K THX BAI

Yep.

loborick
12-29-2008, 12:56 AM
You are right on the money here. In fact, it is the most prevalent here on this forum. It amazes me that Danny Granger is most undervalued HERE, on a pacers site. All these players who are supposedly so much more talented than Danny are not producing as much as Danny. Why? Best player on a bad team? I don't buy it, not one bit. I guess that makes Kevin Durant a pretty untalented player too. Its silly, I mean just recently didn't he have like two 40plus point games in like the span of a week? Hell he scored 14 of his 34 in the fourth quarter tonight, hit two huge free throws, and CONTINUES to improve. How about his assist numbers in the last 10-12 games? been getting 4 or 5 assists a game and making slick passes now for some time.

What else does the guy have to do? Other teams announcers talk better about Danny than pacers fans.

I have noticed that for two years. While his stock has risen all over, the fans here get on him and don't give him credit for wins and blame him for losses. He can't do it alone. One good player isn't going to make a team win.

Please trade him. If you won't appreciate him, let him go.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 12:58 AM
I disagree, coaching becomes less important and talent becomes more important at the end of close games.

Maybe so, but what do you want Roy to do, put himself in the game? It certainly helps when your most talented players or at least the guy playing the best in the game gets the PT at the end. However Obie, in his infinite wisdom, decided to play Foster and Rasho who had done approximately nil in the game while Roy rotted on the bench. How do you expect these guys to gain confidence when they give you the best effort of the season and you tell them to sit on the bench for two guys who have done nothing all game? I understand he had five fouls, but he should have gotten the chance to play late in the game. He was our best center tonight, by a large margin, offensively and defensively.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 12:59 AM
And as far as playing great D on the last play, where was the timeout to start that defense like five plays earlier when it was clear it was going to be CP3 vs. all? I'm sorry, but OBie is clueless.

Coop
12-29-2008, 01:00 AM
New York -- Got me here
Philadelphia -- Got to be kidding, Iggy and Brand are both superior.
Chicago -- Rose, while not better right now, is quite good and anyone would rather him
Charlotte -- I'll concede this one
OKC -- I think 9 GM's out of 10 would take Durant over Granger, but would agree Granger is currently better
Golden State -- Beidrins is better, plain and simple.
Sacramento -- Kevin Martin is an extremely good ball player, scores with amazing efficiency... if Granger is better, it's not by much
Memphis -- OJ Mayo in the same lines as Rose. Kid's a baller


So... we definitely have the best player verse 2 teams in the league. Go us.

I'm not going to argue this tooth and nail, but as I said earlier, many are underestimating Granger. The dude is the #5 scorer in the league and is still getting better. Just because he doesn't have all the record deals and media glamour, he isn't recognized as a legitimate star. As someone said earlier, the only way he will truly get the respect he deserves is by winning. When that happens, hopefully people will realize that pure talent isn't the only thing that contributes to being a great player. Work ethic, heart, and being a team player are equally as important. That's something a lot of bystanders don't recognize with Danny. He's extraordinary in all 3 of those categories, and paired with his pretty darn good talent, he is turning into a top-tier player in this league.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 01:03 AM
I LOL at the fact that people are on here discounting Granger. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM THE GUY?????

He scored 15 points in the fourth, and if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have had a chance. Give me a freaking break, some of you would ***** and moan if we had Lebron starting at SF.

The problem isn't our best player ( though I could concede he might be better as a second banana, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it) the problem is the supporting cast plain and simple.

BTW, you lost me when you said Biedrins>Granger, and that Brand AND Iggy are clearly better than Granger.

I'd say Granger is better than anything the Clippers have to offer at this point or Milwaukee, how about New Jersey? Seriously, Granger is pretty damn good why can't some of you just accept that?

BTW, you don't need the OMG best player EVAR 1337 to win a championship in the NBA why don't you ask the Detroit Pistons.

esabyrn333
12-29-2008, 01:13 AM
I LOL at the fact that people are on here discounting Granger. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM THE GUY?????

He scored 15 points in the fourth, and if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have had a chance. Give me a freaking break, some of you would ***** and moan if we had Lebron starting at SF.

The problem isn't our best player ( though I could concede he might be better as a second banana, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it) the problem is the supporting cast plain and simple.

BTW, you lost me when you said Biedrins>Granger, and that Brand AND Iggy are clearly better than Granger.

I'd say Granger is better than anything the Clippers have to offer at this point or Milwaukee, how about New Jersey? Seriously, Granger is pretty damn good why can't some of you just accept that?

BTW, you don't need the OMG best player EVAR 1337 to win a championship in the NBA why don't you ask the Detroit Pistons.

AMEN

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 01:14 AM
I'm ranting now, I know it, but I honest to God cannot believe that I am reading a post game thread talking about how Granger isn't that great after this game. Makes me damn sad to be a Pacer fan. A lot of fingers could be pointed for this loss none should be aimed at Danny. He left all on the court for you guys tonight, and does pretty much every damn night.

His averages over the last five games 30.8 pts, 6.2 rebs, and 4.4 assists. There are not many guys in the NBA that can do that. A handful at best. And yet here we are complaining about him. Truly incredible.

Anthem
12-29-2008, 01:15 AM
We're not comparing Jim OBrien with Larry Brown are we?
I thought they were comparing him to Hill.

joew8302
12-29-2008, 02:31 AM
I just got back from the game, pretty gutwrenching. I have had the chance to attend two games over break, NJ and tonight, the Pacers made this break pretty miserable. I will see them in Charlotte once again this season, but thats it.

One thing that does kill the Pacers is officiating, it is horrendus. How Jack's drive was not called a foul is a mystery to me. You mean to tell me if Chris Paul makes that same drive and draws contact he isn't at the free throw line? Give me a break. They then come down the floor, and Posey has a hand land on him and the refs don't hesitate blowing a whistle. On Tuesday night I see that it is apparently legal to push a rookie trying to dunk a basketball in the 4th quater and get away with it if your name is Vince Carter. Please. The reffing in late game situations is atrocious. It is calls like this that makes me think there were more than just one crooked official and they are still working.

I really do not think I am overracting here either, how three guys with whistles miss things so obvious and convienntly end up screwing the Pacers is amazing.

Mourning
12-29-2008, 05:49 AM
10-20 is not anything to brag about, but my God, this is a rebuilding team and anyone who expected us to make and advance in the playoffs this year is/was crazy. 10-20 is not any sign of uttermost futility, really to complain at such a level about it just shows how used to success we are as fans of what is a really good franchise historically. I actually "thought" this team could win 45 games but I'm always in a sunshiner/optimistic mood at the beginning of the year.

We're in the first 30 games of Year #1 of what will probably be a 2 or 3 year rebuilding product and everyone is already freaking out that we can't beat a top tier team like New Orleans. I realize that it's frustrating, but it's called growing pains and that's part of rebuilding.

If the Pacers are your complete world and you're impatient, better take up a hobby because we aren't going to be incredibly competitive this year.


:amen:


I'm ranting now, I know it, but I honest to God cannot believe that I am reading a post game thread talking about how Granger isn't that great after this game. Makes me damn sad to be a Pacer fan. A lot of fingers could be pointed for this loss none should be aimed at Danny. He left all on the court for you guys tonight, and does pretty much every damn night.

His averages over the last five games 30.8 pts, 6.2 rebs, and 4.4 assists. There are not many guys in the NBA that can do that. A handful at best. And yet here we are complaining about him. Truly incredible.

and double :amen:

D-BONE
12-29-2008, 08:52 AM
Danny's playing excellent ball and we are competing. He just doesn't have any consistent help.

That said, a lot of guys I think are playing to their potential at this moment. It's debateable what Hibbert and Rush's impact will ultimately be, but it's obviously too early for them to be there. Quis and Murphy are basically maxed out and deserve credit for it. McRoberts has shown flashes, but I wish there were more opportunities for him. Foster is Foster. Rasho is Rasho.

Until further additions/development occur, the only way we can win some games is as a TEAM, which would require learning to close close games. That, in turn, means better defense and less turnovers-not a revelation. Players and coaching staff could both be responsible in those areas.

Justin Tyme
12-29-2008, 09:37 AM
An inordinate number of close losses is a clear sign of bad end-of-game coaching.



Quit making sense!

Justin Tyme
12-29-2008, 10:05 AM
What adds to this and gives this line of thought a lot of weight is the number of leads we've allowed to dwindle.

It's not like we've overachieved, slowed the game down, and then gave ourselves a chance to win at the end and just came up short. We've had significant leads and given them (and momentum away) usually to all of a sudden NEED a basket to keep hope alive. ...rinse and repeat...

This is now a worrisome trend.


TPTB and ownership must not think so, b/c it is continually being allowed to happen.

Why does those with the power to change things believe that a shootout run n gun with little "D" is the answer to winning? Things can't remain the same, and if they do who is going to be held accountable?

When looking at trading for future players, what type of players with what type of skills are they looking for? More players to try to pigeon-hole into a system that is flawed and not working? Players that won't fit the next coach, and have to re-make the roster again?

Name 1 team in the last 10 years that has run the type system JO'B is running that has won a championship? (Everyone realizes the Pacers aren't going to win a championship) If you are interested in the status quo of lossing, but having exciting and entertaining games, then by all means continue on this path. As it has been said and expressed a 1,001 times on this board, WINNING will bring back the fans to Conseco. How is continual losing going to bring them back?

Justin Tyme
12-29-2008, 10:37 AM
I must be missing something or another, b/c I don't see ALL the Granger bashing like others are referring to in this thread or even in others. Sure there is a comment or three made every once in a while, but on the whole I feel we, as fans, truly appreciate Danny more than what has been stated in this thread. Danny is having an outstanding year, unfortunately the team isn't. That isn't Danny's fault. That's the fault of the coach and TPTB. How can one not be pleased with how Danny is playing on a team that only wins 1 game out of 3? Go back and look at last season's threads, and you will find plenty of Granger bashing. I for one appreciate what Danny's doing this year. I just wish we had other players who were as good. My 2cents worth.

Frostwolf
12-29-2008, 10:52 AM
New York -- Got me here
Philadelphia -- Got to be kidding, Iggy and Brand are both superior.


I stopped reading here.

Granger is averaging 24.9 ppg from 45.5%, 5.1 rpg, 3.2 apg, AND 1.0 spg and 1.3 bpg.

Iguodala is averaging 15.2 ppg from 43.6%, 6.4 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.6 spg and 0.6 bpg.

Brand is averaging 15.9 ppg from 44.7%, 9.8 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.7 spg and 1.4 bpg.

So then...

Granger shoots better than Iguodala, scores almost 10 more PPG, gets 1 rebound and 2 assists less, and has a slightly better S+B total.

Granger shoots better than Brand (pathetic considering Brand's a PF), gets 4.7 rpg less (which shouldn't even be a debate in the first place), gets more than double the number of assists and has a better S+B total (they have similar block numbers).

So how are both of them better than Granger at this point in time?

Hicks
12-29-2008, 12:11 PM
I have noticed that for two years. While his stock has risen all over, the fans here get on him and don't give him credit for wins and blame him for losses. He can't do it alone. One good player isn't going to make a team win.

Please trade him. If you won't appreciate him, let him go.

Some of us appreciate him. It hasn't sunk in yet to me how good he's become, but I know it. I'm thrilled with Danny. He's just about as good as Jermaine ever was for us. Maybe worse defensively I guess, but then again not really because I always felt people overrated JO's on-ball defense.

I don't want to debate it, so if you (the reader) really feel passionately enough to disagree with me, please start a new thread.

I just wanted to say that Danny is becoming a hell of a player, and I am saddened by how often people either don't see it or down play it any way they can.

With some people, if a player isn't an A+ star they get treated like they're a C player even if they're a B+ or an A-.

Dece
12-29-2008, 01:04 PM
Hey, I wasn't blaming Danny for the loss here, I guess I just don't see him as being as good as many think he is, it was an interesting question to me. We didn't lose because of Danny Granger, it was more of a way to see how we have a talent deficit in this league.

shockedandchagrined
12-29-2008, 01:12 PM
Your contention that it's all about who has the best players assumes that there is no coach on the sideline directing the show. If you think it's just about who has the best players, then I don't think you've played much, or coached much basketball. There is a TON of things that a good coach does at the end of a game.

(in today's game I didn't see JOB do any of them).

For the Pacers, there is a very definite pattern of getting outcoached in the closing minutes of games.


That's easy...WIN. The best measure of a great player is that he makes his team win. So far Granger is a GOOD player, but he hasn't crossed the line to being a GREAT player because his team loses 2/3's of it's games.

Same for Durant. He's not a GREAT player yet. He has real good skills and can do a lot of things....but one thing that he can't do yet is win.

I find these two statements to be inconsistent. In one you criticize O'brien for the losses and then in the other acknowledge that Granger's status as a great player can only be measured by winning. So who's obligation is it to win?

If you want to argue that coaches win games in high school or college then fine, but the NBA is a players league, period. I think that should be the reference point for compliment/criticism of any NBA coach. Does O'brien make mistakes? I'm sure that he does since he's a human being. However, he will never be able to make free throws or layups in crunch time, nor does he commit the turnovers or fail to retrieve tough defensive rebounds. This was, is and always will be the responsibility of the players.

His primary job, like all other coaches in the league, is to prepare his team to compete. Once that has been accomplished, the players have to bring it home. This is not to say that a coach's in game decisions have no bearing or that you could put a chimp on the sideline and net the same results. It does mean though that most decisions are judgment calls that can be argued ad nauseum from multiple points of view, and the bottom line remains that the success/failure of those judgment calls is still directly related to the execution of the players.

deekay85
12-29-2008, 01:15 PM
Again and again, no defense, no wins!

Bball
12-29-2008, 05:46 PM
However, he will never be able to make free throws or layups in crunch time, nor does he commit the turnovers or fail to retrieve tough defensive rebounds. This was, is and always will be the responsibility of the players.


Coaches don't make those mistakes.... and neither do well-coached players...

Coaching IMHO is important in the NBA. It may be a players' league but bad/inadequate coaching can make even the best of players/teams slip a notch. Your approach may be different, but the goals remain the same.


-Bball

Hicks
12-29-2008, 07:06 PM
Well-coached plays full well can make all those mistakes, Bball. It's just part of the game. Michael Jordan missed dunks.

Bball
12-29-2008, 10:10 PM
Well-coached plays full well can make all those mistakes, Bball. It's just part of the game. Michael Jordan missed dunks.

Well yeah... individually there will be mistakes. But a well coached team will make far fewer of those mistakes over the course of a game (or series of games) than a team that is not well-coached.

Of course you also need coachable players.

BRushWithDeath
12-29-2008, 10:38 PM
Anyone know if McRoberts was available?



He was available and 100%. Two straight DNP's is absurd.

As for the timeout situation two (a 20 and a full) had to be used during Jack's "injury". Diener would have been better anyway at the end.

count55
12-30-2008, 07:38 AM
As for the timeout situation two (a 20 and a full) had to be used during Jack's "injury".

This isn't right. They originally called (and announced) a 20-second timeout, then changed it to a full. Only the full timeout was charged.

It is not uncommon for a team to call a 20, then change it. It always only counts as one charged time out.

Putnam
12-30-2008, 09:22 AM
Again and again, no defense, no wins!

With all due respect, deekay, this statement is too simple to stand up.

Defense does not win games; point differential does. Scoring one point more than the other team wins the game every time. A team can play incredible defense -- hold the other team under 70 -- and still lose if it doesn't score one point more. So it is not as simple as defense wins games.

The Pacers' record would be better if they'd been able to stop opponents from scoring in the waning seconds of recent games. No argument there. But it is clearly wrong to say that defense is all that matters. And I think it is also wrong to say that the Pacers are playing "no defense." They are playing a kind of defense. It is inadequate, but it is not nothing.

shockedandchagrined
12-30-2008, 10:01 AM
Well yeah... individually there will be mistakes. But a well coached team will make far fewer of those mistakes over the course of a game (or series of games) than a team that is not well-coached.

Of course you also need coachable players.

Not trying to minimize the importance of coaching, just suggesting that the in game significance can easily be exaggerated.

I think this group has demonstrated that they are both coachable and well coached. They play hard and together every night. In fact Chris Paul's comment after the game Sunday was to emphasize how hard the Pacers play on every single possession.

O'brien has them prepared and competing, but their margin for error right now is very small. I think this group can improve their end of game execution and be more successful as constituted, but I also think this soup has some simmering yet to do and probably needs another ingredient (or two) to boot.

Justin Tyme
12-30-2008, 12:42 PM
With all due respect, deekay, this statement is too simple to stand up.

Defense does not win games; point differential does. Scoring one point more than the other team wins the game every time. A team can play incredible defense -- hold the other team under 70 -- and still lose if it doesn't score one point more. So it is not as simple as defense wins games.

The Pacers' record would be better if they'd been able to stop opponents from scoring in the waning seconds of recent games. No argument there. But it is clearly wrong to say that defense is all that matters. And I think it is also wrong to say that the Pacers are playing "no defense." They are playing a kind of defense. It is inadequate, but it is not nothing.


I don't believe anyone on board doesn't understand that the team with one point more point at the end of the is the winner. The issue with "D" is that DEFENSE keeps that opposition from getting that one more point.

As much as I loathe Bob Knight, he knew defense won games. He preached it, practiced it, and WON with that philosophy. Three NCAA championships, IIRC. My all time favorite coach, Mr. John Wooden, knew the samething, and I believe he had a "little suiccess" using that idea about defense.

Phil Jackson and Larry Brown both understand the importance of "D", and both have had won championships with teams that played "D". The Celtics last year won a championship and played outstanding "D", so deekay85 post about no defense no wins is quite valid.

Name one team that has won a championship in the last 10 years that won playing a JO'B's style game?

Unfortunately, the style of game JO'B is in love with that doesn't emphasize playing defense isn't winning. A 10-20 record proves it. So again deekay85's statement is validated.

I'm not asking for JO'B to be fired or replaced, but as the COACH to get his team to play DEFENSE so that they are the team at the end of the game that is one point ahead. How hard is it for the man to understand that his system IS NOT working when his team is losing 2 out of 3 games?

In the Pacers last game, they lost to Memphis. Memphis had lost their 4 previous games by scoring an average of 86 points. They score 20 more points than that average and defeat the Pacers. Memphis lost last night to the T-Wolves in over time that had only won 4 games. Deekay85's statement about no defense no wins is right on the money.

Putnam
12-30-2008, 01:08 PM
Funny you should mention Bob Knight. Here's some excellent crunch-time defense:

2dgkmikdVM8

. . . and yet the team that scored the last basket over that great defense won the game.

I'm not denying that defense matters. It certainly does. I'm denying that defense alone matters, and I'm denying that "no defense" is an accurate description of how the Pacers play.


Name one team that has won a championship in the last 10 years that won playing a JO'B's style game?

I'm not sure this question is fair. No coach could win a championship with these guys. "JO'B's style" is determined by the players he has. He can't control their talent level. One thing he can control is the tempo of the game, and I respect his strategy of outrunning opponents. It doesn't mean they are playing "no defense."


The argument for the preeminence of defense is stronger in football than basketball, and yet the 2007 NFL championship was won by team that strove to strike fast and outscore its opponent.



In the Pacers last game, they lost to Memphis. Memphis had lost their 4 previous games by scoring an average of 86 points. They score 20 more points than that average and defeat the Pacers. Memphis lost last night to the T-Wolves in over time that had only won 4 games.

So?

Bball
12-30-2008, 01:18 PM
Putnam, IU played great FT defense allowing them to have a chance to win that game ;)

Hicks
12-30-2008, 01:28 PM
Putnam, if you can tell me anyone here who literally believes that defense alone matters, I will be surprised. You're being robotic in your processing here.

Everyone here understands that it takes offense and defense. Everyone here knows that most teams can play offense pretty well, but unless they also play defense at least moderately well, they're not going to win as much as the team that does so. So this whole this is arguing for the sake of arguing IMO.

Putnam
12-30-2008, 01:29 PM
Putnam, IU played great FT defense allowing them to have a chance to win that game ;)
Ya gotta love that free throw defense!


deekay, Justin, Hicks and all: I don't mean to be robotic. I am pushing back on what seems to me to be an overstatement. The statement, "No defense, no win" implies that the Pacers are playing "no defense." I dispute that. Failing to stop David West's game winner lost the Pacers the game, but it doesn't justify the "no defense" statement.

There is a real disagreement here, because Justin is (seems to be) contending that the high scores of recent Pacers games (rather than the point differentials) is the cause of the Pacers' losses. He implies that if the Pacers had kept the score lower, as those other teams did that beat Memphis, the Pacers would have won instead of losing. I think it is possible that, had the games been played at a slower pace, the Pacers might have lost by a wider margin. Playing a fast tempo may be the best way for the Pacers to stay close. A faster tempo results in more attempts for both teams, but that isn't "no defense."


By the way, Keith Smart has recently been named the Golden State Warriors defensive coach. I didn't realize that until I looked for a link for "The Shot."

Justin Tyme
12-30-2008, 02:00 PM
Ya gotta love that free throw defense!

deekay, Justin, Hicks and all: I don't mean to be robotic. I am pushing back on what seems to me to be an overstatement. The statement, "No defense, no win" implies that the Pacers are playing "no defense." I dispute that. Failing to stop David West's game winner lost the Pacers the game, but it doesn't justify the "no defense" statement.

Playing a fast tempo may be the best way for the Pacers to stay close. But a faster tempo results in more attempts for both teams.


By the way, Keith Smart has recently been named the Golden state Warriors defensive coach. I didn't realize that until I looked or the link on "The Shot."


Nellie named Smart and I believe another coach as "D" coaches about 2 weeks ago.

If the Pacers had been playing "better" defense throughout, the game David West's shot wouldn't have mattered, and the Pacers would have won. Why put the emphasize on playing "D" towards the end of the game in order to have to win the game? Playing better "D" throughout the game would eliminate that, b/c the Hornets wouldn't have even been in that position to have won the game. All I'm asking is that JO'B have the Pacers play defense, so the Pacers can win games instead of losing them.

Putnam
12-30-2008, 02:39 PM
I'm cool with this:

All I'm asking is that JO'B have the Pacers play defense, so the Pacers can win games instead of losing them.

But we can't infer from the total score whether defense was played or not. Defense plus fast tempo could result in a high score and a win. On the other hand, low scoring doesn't prove defense was good. A team can keep the score low by wasting the shot clock on its own possessions. that's not good defense at all, but it keeps the score low. I used to watch a team like that, and I didn't like it.


"Pacers need to play better defense" ==> :highfive:

"Pacers don't play any defense" ==> :box:

shockedandchagrined
12-30-2008, 03:41 PM
Nellie named Smart and I believe another coach as "D" coaches about 2 weeks ago.

If the Pacers had been playing "better" defense throughout, the game David West's shot wouldn't have mattered, and the Pacers would have won. Why put the emphasize on playing "D" towards the end of the game in order to have to win the game? Playing better "D" throughout the game would eliminate that, b/c the Hornets wouldn't have even been in that position to have won the game. All I'm asking is that JO'B have the Pacers play defense, so the Pacers can win games instead of losing them.

It seems to me that if the Pacers could play significantly better defense throughout the game they would do just that. It's simply easier to say than to actually do. Every team in this league allows penetration. You cannot just stop it for 48 minutes; the players are too good. The Pacers themselves get plenty of penetration. However, good teams have some athleticism in the paint to help counter this problem when it occurs. The Pacers simply have no one who can consistently contest shots and generally make it hard to score in the paint. Barring a personnel miracle, they will not solve this problem during this season.

They are much better off concentrating on reducing their turnovers and it would sure be nice if they could hit the three ball at a percentage more on par with last year.

Putnam
12-30-2008, 07:52 PM
Can someone explain what the "pace" value in the following table means?

Team Won-Lost Profiles
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="640"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"> <td bgcolor="#000000" width="96"><center>Opp. Rank</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td colspan="4" width="180"><center>Good</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td colspan="4" width="180"><center>Average</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td colspan="4" width="180"><center>Poor</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5"> <td bgcolor="#cccccc"><center>Stat</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td width="39"><center>W</center></td> <td width="39"><center>L</center></td> <td width="45"><center>W%</center></td> <td width="57"><center>Net</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td width="39"><center>W</center></td> <td width="39"><center>L</center></td> <td width="45"><center>W%</center></td> <td width="57"><center>Net</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td width="39"><center>W</center></td> <td width="39"><center>L</center></td> <td width="45"><center>W%</center></td> <td width="57"><center>Net</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Points For</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 38% </td> <td align="right"> -1.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 33% </td> <td align="right"> -4.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -1.5 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Points Agn</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 10 </td> <td align="right"> 23% </td> <td align="right"> -4.0 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 22% </td> <td align="right"> -6.0 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 63% </td> <td align="right"> 5.0 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Net Points</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -4.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 33% </td> <td align="right"> -0.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 43% </td> <td align="right"> -0.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Off eFG%</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -4.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 30% </td> <td align="right"> -0.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 44% </td> <td align="right"> -1.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Def eFG%</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 11 </td> <td align="right"> 21% </td> <td align="right"> -4.5 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 25% </td> <td align="right"> -6.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 63% </td> <td align="right"> 5.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>FTA Net</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 46% </td> <td align="right"> -1.6 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 1 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 17% </td> <td align="right"> -5.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -1.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Rebounds</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 46% </td> <td align="right"> -1.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 38% </td> <td align="right"> 2.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 1 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 11% </td> <td align="right"> -6.6 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Turnovers</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 38% </td> <td align="right"> -0.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 9 </td> <td align="right"> 25% </td> <td align="right"> -3.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 40% </td> <td align="right"> -3.4 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Assists</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -4.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 1 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 13% </td> <td align="right"> -7.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 55% </td> <td align="right"> 3.5 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Blocks</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 10 </td> <td align="right"> 17% </td> <td align="right"> -4.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 33% </td> <td align="right"> -4.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 56% </td> <td align="right"> 3.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Pace</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 50% </td> <td align="right"> -3.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 9 </td> <td align="right"> 36% </td> <td align="right"> -0.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 20% </td> <td align="right"> -4.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809IND4.HTM


If "good" pace teams play faster and shoot and score more, then this table provides evidence that the Pacers do better when they play that way. They are 3-3 versus teams when the pace is good, and only 2-8 when "pace" is poor.

That suggests the Pacers get their best results when they push the tempo, take lots of shots, force opponents to take quick shots and rely on rebounding, an advantage in Field Goal Attempts and good ball control to give them the winning margin. This is contrary to the ordinary idea of defense, but it can be a winning formula.

But that all depends on what "pace" means. It may well means something different than I suppose, which wo9uld mean I'm full of baloney.


EDIT: Tonight's game against Atlanta makes me sort of reconsider whether "no defense" might not be more accurate than I'd like to admit.

count55
12-30-2008, 09:15 PM
Let's make this discussion a bit more substantive and less robotic, if possible: Can someone explain what the "pace" value in the following table means?



Team Won-Lost Profiles
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="640"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"> <td bgcolor="#000000" width="96"><center>Opp. Rank</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td colspan="4" width="180"><center>Good</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td colspan="4" width="180"><center>Average</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td colspan="4" width="180"><center>Poor</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5"> <td bgcolor="#cccccc"><center>Stat</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td width="39"><center>W</center></td> <td width="39"><center>L</center></td> <td width="45"><center>W%</center></td> <td width="57"><center>Net</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td width="39"><center>W</center></td> <td width="39"><center>L</center></td> <td width="45"><center>W%</center></td> <td width="57"><center>Net</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td width="39"><center>W</center></td> <td width="39"><center>L</center></td> <td width="45"><center>W%</center></td> <td width="57"><center>Net</center></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Points For</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 38% </td> <td align="right"> -1.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 33% </td> <td align="right"> -4.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -1.5 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Points Agn</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 10 </td> <td align="right"> 23% </td> <td align="right"> -4.0 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 22% </td> <td align="right"> -6.0 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 63% </td> <td align="right"> 5.0 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Net Points</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -4.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 33% </td> <td align="right"> -0.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 43% </td> <td align="right"> -0.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Off eFG%</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -4.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 30% </td> <td align="right"> -0.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 44% </td> <td align="right"> -1.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Def eFG%</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 11 </td> <td align="right"> 21% </td> <td align="right"> -4.5 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 25% </td> <td align="right"> -6.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 63% </td> <td align="right"> 5.9 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>FTA Net</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 46% </td> <td align="right"> -1.6 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 1 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 17% </td> <td align="right"> -5.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -1.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Rebounds</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 46% </td> <td align="right"> -1.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 38% </td> <td align="right"> 2.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 1 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 11% </td> <td align="right"> -6.6 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Turnovers</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 38% </td> <td align="right"> -0.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 9 </td> <td align="right"> 25% </td> <td align="right"> -3.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 40% </td> <td align="right"> -3.4 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Assists</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 27% </td> <td align="right"> -4.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 1 </td> <td align="right"> 7 </td> <td align="right"> 13% </td> <td align="right"> -7.3 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 55% </td> <td align="right"> 3.5 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Blocks</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 10 </td> <td align="right"> 17% </td> <td align="right"> -4.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 6 </td> <td align="right"> 33% </td> <td align="right"> -4.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 4 </td> <td align="right"> 56% </td> <td align="right"> 3.2 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td>Pace</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 3 </td> <td align="right"> 50% </td> <td align="right"> -3.8 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 5 </td> <td align="right"> 9 </td> <td align="right"> 36% </td> <td align="right"> -0.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> <td align="right"> 2 </td> <td align="right"> 8 </td> <td align="right"> 20% </td> <td align="right"> -4.1 </td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" width="1">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809IND4.HTM


If, as I suspect, the teams that are "good" for pace are teams that play faster and shoot and score more, then this table provides evidence that the Pacers do better when they push the tempo and run up the score than otherwise. They are 3-3 versus teams when the pace is good, and only 2-8 when "pace" is poor.

That suggests the Pacers get good results when they push the tempo, take lots of shots, force opponents to take quick shots and rely on rebounding, an advantage in Field Goal Attempts and good ball control to give them the winning margin. This is contrary to the ordinary idea of defense, but it can be a winning formula.

If "pace" means something other than what I'm supposing, I'm prepared to eat crow.

Pace is generally an estimate of number of possessions per 48 minute game. This implies that they have the most success (.500) against teams in the top ten in the league in Pace Factor. It is not based on the pace of the individual game.