PDA

View Full Version : y do coaches implement fast past styles if it doesn't win u a Ring?



kbills05
01-23-2009, 10:13 AM
just wanted to ask a simple question. to me the nba is hard enough, however y do coaches implement a fast paste offense where u are jacking up 3's all day...when everyone knows that you can't win a championship w/ that style...? your thoughts?

Major Cold
01-23-2009, 10:15 AM
It is sexy. Like JOB's sideburns. You know you want to touch them.

D23
01-23-2009, 10:17 AM
Probably because they don't have the right personnel to play a slow-down game. And yes, because it's also sexy and helps bring excitement to a team that's been struggling for something the fans want to watch.

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 10:36 AM
So instead of JOB, you say "coaches". I get it. Keep tweaking your wording so it won't get this thread merged...

EDIT: I've never seen a "fast paste offense" before. Is that where you stick quickly in place then shoot?

Major Cold
01-23-2009, 10:39 AM
Is that where you stick quickly in place then shoot?
no hating:troymurphy:

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 10:40 AM
no hating:troymurphy:
Hey, I never hate on The Notebook.

travmil
01-23-2009, 10:44 AM
Admins, you know in your heart of hearts that eventually the guy that keeps starting these threads will get banned. Why not save us all a little bit of trouble and Able some bandwidth?

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 10:45 AM
I like to start the morning off with a glass of OJ and a bowl of hearty complain about our coach. 2% please!

Major Cold
01-23-2009, 10:45 AM
I see no problem with this thread staying out. If anyone else posted this very question it would be accepted and discussed.

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 10:47 AM
I see no problem with this thread staying out. If anyone else posted this very question it would be accepted and discussed.
It's a broken record. C'mon, you know for a fact he means Jimmy. He's just trying to snake his way into keeping this thread from being merged.

Of course this thread would stay out, if there weren't 50,000 of them already...49,998 of them by this guy.

Major Cold
01-23-2009, 10:50 AM
actually soup has the 50K :lol:

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 10:51 AM
actually soup has the 50K :lol:
Sometimes you just get sucked in...

pacergod2
01-23-2009, 10:58 AM
how can there be "49,998 of them by this guy" when he has only posted a total of 20 times. Or is there something I am missing here.

I don't really think this is a fire JOB thread. I think it is more of a style question, that is unfortunately worded poorly.

How about: why do coaches like Don Nelson insist on running a fast PACED offense, when it has consistently proven to not be effective throughout the playoffs?

My thought on THAT, is that GM's across the league have not drafted well/developed talent well and have been in situations where they were forced into free agents or other bad personnel decisions and they are forced to accommodate the talent they have. I think the front office in Oakland is drinking the same bad water that Al Davis is.

kbills05
01-23-2009, 11:03 AM
actually i started this thread....but i am speaking Generally not coach jim o'brien, don nelson, d'antoni....all of those coaches do the same thing and it does not pan out thats all i'm saying...

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 11:04 AM
how can there be "49,998 of them by this guy" when he has only posted a total of 20 times. Or is there something I am missing here.

I don't really think this is a fire JOB thread. I think it is more of a style question, that is unfortunately worded poorly.

How about: why do coaches like Don Nelson insist on running a fast PACED offense, when it has consistently proven to not be effective throughout the playoffs?

My thought on THAT, is that GM's across the league have not drafted well/developed talent well and have been in situations where they were forced into free agents or other bad personnel decisions and they are forced to accommodate the talent they have. I think the front office in Oakland is drinking the same bad water that Al Davis is.
Never said it was a "fire JOB thread", just another negatively geared thread based on the coaching style we have.

Also, 49,998 is an exaggeration...

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 11:06 AM
actually i started this thread....but i am speaking Generally not coach jim o'brien, don nelson, d'antoni....all of those coaches do the same thing and it does not pan out thats all i'm saying...
But it's all about coaches. It never ends. Complaining about a coach day after day just doesn't seem fulfilling.

Think of something else to start, or just add to another thread. You know you can do that, right?

nerveghost
01-23-2009, 11:06 AM
Valid point - i can't think of any teams that have won a ring with this style of offense post "Bad Boys". Of course prior to Detroit's run, everyone played like that - just watch ESPN Classic.

Remember Denver's run with Westhead? Michael Adams and Chris Jackson. Those teams put up some points.

Anthem
01-23-2009, 11:34 AM
Ah, the rhetorical question. A favorite of skilled debaters everywhere.

As rhetorical questions go, the one in the original post isn't bad. It's not quite up to snuff, though, with the two questions that it immediately begs.

First, why start a thread in a discussion forum if you really only want to vent? And more importantly, why use "y" for "why" and "u" for "you" when it makes your questions look like they were written by an illiterate teenager?

Truly, man may never know.

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 11:36 AM
First, why start a thread in a discussion forum if you really only want to vent? And more importantly, why use "y" for "why" and "u" for "you" when it makes your questions look like they were written by an illiterate teenager?


It makes it difficult to take one seriously when it seems like their thread was made up like a 15 year-old girl's text message.

Anthem
01-23-2009, 11:36 AM
And the answer to the original post, of course, is this:

We're not winning a ring with our current personnel, no matter what style of play we use. So the goal is to maximize wins with the guys we have. And this style (hypothetically) gives the best chance for regular-season success, even if it doesn't lead to the Finals.

You can disagree (as many of us do) that this style leads to regular-season success, but I'm just telling you what the logic looks like.

count55
01-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Valid point - i can't think of any teams that have won a ring with this style of offense post "Bad Boys". Of course prior to Detroit's run, everyone played like that - just watch ESPN Classic.

Remember Denver's run with Westhead? Michael Adams and Chris Jackson. Those teams put up some points.

Even the first "Bad Boys" team would've been "fast" by today's standards, with a Pace of 95.5. That would put them 4th fastest this year, right behind the Pacers.

The Pacers, at 96.5, are signifantly "slower" than every champion between 1974 (the first year BBR reports Pace) and 1998, as shown in this table below:


Team Pace DRtg Rank in 09
1974 BOS 110.0 95.1 1
1975 GSW 107.6 97.3 1
1976 BOS 106.9 96.7 1
1977 POR 108.0 98.0 1
1978 WAS 108.1 100.5 3
1979 SEA 103.4 100.1 2
1980 LAL 104.1 103.9 4
1981 BOS 100.8 102.6 4
1982 LAL 103.1 105.5 9
1983 PHI 102.7 100.9 3
1984 BOS 99.7 104.4 5
1985 LAL 103.2 107.0 15
1986 BOS 101.2 102.6 4
1987 LAL 101.6 106.5 15
1988 LAL 99.1 107.3 15


Those are all of the champions during that time frame. You'll also see that Pace and defense are not mutually exclusive. Eleven of those fifteen teams would've been Top 5 in Defensive rating. Only the four Laker teams would not have been, and I would gladly take my chances with any of those four teams against the 2009 field, with Magic, Worthy, Scott, and Kareem.

There was clearly a sea change in the 90's. The Bad Boys may have been the progenitor of it, but it was really Pat Riley's Knicks that were responsible for the depth to which the ugliness of the game reached. The "No Layup Rule" and the belief that refs simply couldn't call a foul every time down the floor resulted in a clutch and grab game that reached its nadir, IMO, in the Pacers/Pistons 2004 ECF. The Brawl may have been worse for the Pacers, but that series was worse for NBA basketball. It was a ****ing rugby match that was practically unwatchable. Not only was it ugly, it was a 6-game, 48-minute a night display of how far away from the rules and intent of basketball the NBA had gotten.

The interesting thing is that it appears that while defenses have focused on limiting possessions and slowing down the game, the offenses have actually gotten more efficient. I'd have to run a full trend to see this, but it's an interesting hypothesis.


I see no problem with this thread staying out. If anyone else posted this very question it would be accepted and discussed.

From anyone else, it could have reasonably been thought of as an honest question about style. This poster, on the other hand, has established a clear and consistent agenda. There is no reason to believe this protestation:


but i am speaking Generally not coach jim o'brien, don nelson, d'antoni....all of those coaches do the same thing and it does not pan out thats all i'm saying...

He has, at the time of this writing, 21 posts, in which 14 of them have been some form of complaining about O'Brien.

Major Cold
01-23-2009, 12:02 PM
This thread is on the move as I type this?

BillS
01-23-2009, 12:02 PM
stats 'n' stuff



You are the wind beneath my wings.

Bball
01-23-2009, 12:02 PM
I just want to know where the theory developed that you play a fast paced game if you are at talent deficit? It used to be you wanted to slow the game down, limit possessions, value possessions, play defense as best as you can, and play very deliberately if you were at a talent deficit.

OTOH, to play a fast paced game you wanted to have the horses to outrun the other team and the smarts to quickly create and/or exploit mismatches.

Somewhere that has gotten turned around...

I think there is the tendency to pigeon hole players based on what the coach asks of a team and how the coach uses the players in a system. Therefore, when ONeal was here slowing down the offense and throwing last second hot potato passes to our wings with no offensive flow (on the few times he didn't just clank it off the side of the rim himself) people said we had no shooters. Then ONeal goes out for a significant time and the Pacers retool their offense and suddenly AJ looks like a PG, Reggie's shot returns, and SJax looks like a team player hitting timely baskets.... and that carried us to the playoffs. But then Carlisle again went back to the JO ISO Ball game and rode that horse until it punched his ticket out of here.

OBrien demands our wings shoot and suddenly we have shooters... and not just at the wings. Of course OBrien doesn't demand defense and that IMHO is the real reason why people tend to think our defenders are so poor. While they may not be the best at their positions I fully believe a coach that demanded defense and cared enough about defense to maximize his players could wring more out of these players.

So, back to the rhetorical question of the OP... A fast paced game is 'sexy'. It's probably easier to coach as far as getting your players to buy in. I mean what player doesn't think he's the next Michael Jordan and loves to know he'll get plenty touches and not have to play defense... just hit his marks. The old mantra is offense sells tickets and defense wins championships.

But nobody said a fast paced game should totally negate a team's defense. There should be a balance. The better teams, and better coached teams, realize when they can run and when they need to play more deliberately. They play more situationally.

count55
01-23-2009, 12:06 PM
This thread is on the move as I type this?

I'm not sure what this means, but I was simply trying to say that it is not contradictory to have the following two opinions of this thread:

1. This is a valid topic of discussion, one that could very well have a great deal of high quality debate.

2. The OP is not an honest broker looking to have a debate on offensive style, rather he is an inveterate Fire JOB guy who is looking for another excuse to take potshots at him.

NapTonius Monk
01-23-2009, 12:14 PM
Because they're of the 'YET' mentality. It hasn't won a championship 'YET', but that doesn't mean it never will.

duke dynamite
01-23-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm not sure what this means, but I was simply trying to say that it is not contradictory to have the following two opinions of this thread:

1. This is a valid topic of discussion, one that could very well have a great deal of high quality debate.

2. The OP is not an honest broker looking to have a debate on offensive style, rather he is an inveterate Fire JOB guy who is looking for another excuse to take potshots at him.

I wouldn't call it an excuse, more like a way to take shots at JOB, without mentioning JOB. He doesn't need an excuse, he just does.

Unclebuck
01-23-2009, 12:21 PM
Taking the question at face value -

A team can win a lot of regular season games playing a fast style - just look at the Suns - no way they win that many games playing slow. Also a lot of players want or think they want to play a fast style - so you might be able to get a free agent or two. Players also can pad their stats and get bigger contracts than they otherwise would if they played on a team that only scored 86 pts per game

Hicks
01-23-2009, 12:28 PM
I see no problem with this thread staying out. If anyone else posted this very question it would be accepted and discussed.

I agree

Bball
01-23-2009, 12:46 PM
I wouldn't call it an excuse, more like a way to take shots at JOB, without mentioning JOB. He doesn't need an excuse, he just does.

On the surface, yeah... it does look like that. But then there is an alternate possibility. He's taken pot shots at OBrien and some have defended OBrien and the fast pace. So let's say he doesn't see it. What if he wanted to hear people explain to him the good in a fast paced style if it doesn't have a history of championships to back it up?

Hence, you'd get the question he asked.

Now, if it comes back to OBrien... well then it becomes an "If the shoe fits" scenario. ...But the question is coming at this whole thing from a different angle.... IMHO...

Justin Tyme
01-23-2009, 12:53 PM
I just want to know where the theory developed that you play a fast paced game if you are at talent deficit? It used to be you wanted to slow the game down, limit possessions, value possessions, play defense as best as you can, and play very deliberately if you were at a talent deficit.

OTOH, to play a fast paced game you wanted to have the horses to outrun the other team and the smarts to quickly create and/or exploit mismatches.

Somewhere that has gotten turned around...

I think there is the tendency to pigeon hole players based on what the coach asks of a team and how the coach uses the players in a system. Therefore, when ONeal was here slowing down the offense and throwing last second hot potato passes to our wings with no offensive flow (on the few times he didn't just clank it off the side of the rim himself) people said we had no shooters. Then ONeal goes out for a significant time and the Pacers retool their offense and suddenly AJ looks like a PG, Reggie's shot returns, and SJax looks like a team player hitting timely baskets.... and that carried us to the playoffs. But then Carlisle again went back to the JO ISO Ball game and rode that horse until it punched his ticket out of here.

OBrien demands our wings shoot and suddenly we have shooters... and not just at the wings. Of course OBrien doesn't demand defense and that IMHO is the real reason why people tend to think our defenders are so poor. While they may not be the best at their positions I fully believe a coach that demanded defense and cared enough about defense to maximize his players could wring more out of these players.

So, back to the rhetorical question of the OP... A fast paced game is 'sexy'. It's probably easier to coach as far as getting your players to buy in. I mean what player doesn't think he's the next Michael Jordan and loves to know he'll get plenty touches and not have to play defense... just hit his marks. The old mantra is offense sells tickets and defense wins championships.

But nobody said a fast paced game should totally negate a team's defense. There should be a balance. The better teams, and better coached teams, realize when they can run and when they need to play more deliberately. They play more situationally.



I wish you'd quit making so much sense, your making JO'B apologists look bad.

count55
01-23-2009, 01:11 PM
I just want to know where the theory developed that you play a fast paced game if you are at talent deficit? It used to be you wanted to slow the game down, limit possessions, value possessions, play defense as best as you can, and play very deliberately if you were at a talent deficit.

OTOH, to play a fast paced game you wanted to have the horses to outrun the other team and the smarts to quickly create and/or exploit mismatches.

Somewhere that has gotten turned around...

This is not the argument that is being advanced at all, at least not by me.

Basically, to run a consistently successful half court offense in the NBA, you need two things: a consistent post game and someone who can "move" the defense. The Pacers have neither. They have not shown any indication that they can get consistent success out of the high post motion offense that they run, or get good penetration and creation from their point guards.

The reason that the pace gets pushed is the need to create more "easy" shots for players who cannot otherwise create their own. Ideally, you get more and better shots before the defense is set than you will after. While it's easy to look at an open 20-footer or three with 18 seconds on the shot clock as a "hasty, bad shot", that depends on the belief that you can get a better one later in the shot clock. However, there's a reasonable case to be made that the average quality of shots to be had later in the shot clock will be worse. The same shot is likely to be guarded, or taken by a less desirable shooter.

To some degree, it is reflective of a talent deficit, but it, IMO, has more to do with what's in the toolbox.


OBrien demands our wings shoot and suddenly we have shooters... and not just at the wings. Of course OBrien doesn't demand defense and that IMHO is the real reason why people tend to think our defenders are so poor. While they may not be the best at their positions I fully believe a coach that demanded defense and cared enough about defense to maximize his players could wring more out of these players.

I don't buy this. I believe there are things, systematically, that O'Brien is doing that are causal factors in the failures of the defense. However, people think our defenders are so poor, because our defenders are so poor. I also think that another coach could slow down the game, and improve our defensive statistics, but I also believe that coach would likely win fewer games that the paltry number that we've collected thus far.


So, back to the rhetorical question of the OP... A fast paced game is 'sexy'. It's probably easier to coach as far as getting your players to buy in. I mean what player doesn't think he's the next Michael Jordan and loves to know he'll get plenty touches and not have to play defense... just hit his marks. The old mantra is offense sells tickets and defense wins championships.

But nobody said a fast paced game should totally negate a team's defense. There should be a balance. The better teams, and better coached teams, realize when they can run and when they need to play more deliberately. They play more situationally.

I agree that balance is necessary, and that the defense on this team has been poor and must improve. However, your reasoning here is specious. The better teams, generally, have the ability to do both. The Showtime Lakers, as an example, could run better than any team in the last four decades. However, if they had to run a set, they could post up Kareem or Magic. They also had Magic, who at 6'9", had unfettered vision to run the offense.

The better coached teams have the ability to adjust, but, more than anything else, understand what they do best, and that they need to be who they really are as often as possible. Riley, who presided over the Showtime Lakers, also presided over the clutch and grab Knicks. He coached according to the skills sets on hand, and while they might occasionally switch gears, both teams were continually focused on being who they were: a running team with LA, a half-court team with NY.

In looking at the Pacers, I find it unlikely that being more deliberate offensively with this personnel would translate into more wins. I believe better decisions need to be made offensively, and I'd like to see a simplification of the defense, but I don't believe that a wholesale change in philosophy would have positive results with this roster.

Unclebuck
01-23-2009, 01:16 PM
I just want to know where the theory developed that you play a fast paced game if you are at talent deficit? It used to be you wanted to slow the game down, limit possessions, value possessions, play defense as best as you can, and play very deliberately if you were at a talent deficit.

OTOH, to play a fast paced game you wanted to have the horses to outrun the other team and the smarts to quickly create and/or exploit mismatches.

Somewhere that has gotten turned around...




Hasn't gotten turned around with me - with a talent deficit you should play a slow style.

I still want to know where everyone who is complaining now about the fast style - where were you for 4 years under Carlisle - I felt I was the only one who liked his offense. Where were you when I said that the coaching job that Fratello did in (I think 1998) when the Cavs won 48 games with 4 rookies in their top 8 was the best coaching job I have ever seen - whenever I broght up Mike's name as a possible Pacers coach, you would have thought I would have suggested none other than Hitler himself as coach.

(part of me thinks many will criticize the coach no matter what they do)

Bball
01-23-2009, 01:21 PM
Hasn't gotten turned around with me - with a talent deficit you should play a slow style.

I still want to know where everyone who is complaining now about the fast style - where were you for 4 years under Carlisle - I felt I was the only one who liked his offense. Where were you when I said that the coaching job that Fratello did in (I think 1998) when the Cavs won 48 games with 4 rookies in their top 8 was the best coaching job I have ever seen - whenever I broght up Mike's name as a possible Pacers coach, you would have thought I would have suggested none other than Hitler himself as coach.

(part of me thinks many will criticize the coach no matter what they do)

I liked his offense too... when we were forced to play without JO for significant stretches of time. But as long as JO was here... no. Especially JO without Artest. Of course, now that I say that... I liked it better when JO was out then too. ...And so did our record IIRC.

Kstat
01-23-2009, 01:23 PM
"everyone knows?"

20 years ago, everybody "knew" that a guard could never dominate on a championship team.

Last year, everybody "knew" that Kevin Garnett was too soft to win a title.

Heck, 10 years ago everybody "knew" that allen iverson was way too small to play the two.

kester99
01-23-2009, 01:23 PM
JOB loves stats. His stats tell him that shots put up in the first few seconds of a possession have a statistically better success rate. End of story, pretty much, as far as I can see..

Justin Tyme
01-23-2009, 01:34 PM
Hasn't gotten turned around with me - with a talent deficit you should play a slow style.

I still want to know where everyone who is complaining now about the fast style - where were you for 4 years under Carlisle - I felt I was the only one who liked his offense. Where were you when I said that the coaching job that Fratello did in (I think 1998) when the Cavs won 48 games with 4 rookies in their top 8 was the best coaching job I have ever seen - whenever I broght up Mike's name as a possible Pacers coach, you would have thought I would have suggested none other than Hitler himself as coach.

(part of me thinks many will criticize the coach no matter what they do)


Was it that posters didn't like Carlisle and his slow game or was it that they didn't like everything having to run through JO, possession after possession with the same JO results? I blame TPTB for this as much as Carlisle. Carlisle's coaching, to an extent, was a product of TPTB. JMOAA

Putnam
01-23-2009, 01:36 PM
"everyone knows?"

20 years ago, everybody "knew" that a guard could never dominate on a championship team.

Last year, everybody "knew" that Kevin Garnett was too soft to win a title.

Heck, 10 years ago everybody "knew" that allen iverson was way too small to play the two.



"Imagine what you'll KNOW . . . tomorrow."

http://www.premiere.fr/var/premiere/storage/images/cinema/photos/diaporama/images/men-in-black-ii-2001__9/5928627-1-fre-FR/men_in_black_ii_2001_reference.jpg



Seriously, KStat is right.

The "can't win on just a good offense" argument prevailed in the NFL, too, until the Colts won a super Bowl. Their defense was poor until the playoffs that year, and then during the playoffs the Colts won because they were playing great on both sides of the ball. And you know what? People will continue saying "Defense wins championships."

Somebody (I-co, I think) points out rightly that there have been plenty of offensive powerhouses in the top tier of the NBA. The teams that win championships are good at everything, and saying they won because of their defense is like insisting that ham and eggs are made exclusively of ham.

The Pacers aren't trying to win a championship this year. As Anthem says, they are trying to win games and develop skills. Nobody has ever won a Tour de France riding a pink 20-inch bike with streamers on the handlebars, but all four of my daughters learned to ride on one. If and when the Pacers are in serious post-season competition, they'll be better at stopping opponents when the game is on the line. But they'll also be even better at scoring on fast breaks than they are now.

UncleBuck, I'm sure you don't mean me in the "Where were they..." question. But I didn't like Carlisle's offense and said so often. I do like the faster offense we have now and hope the Pacers can continue to play it with more success.

Finally, to BBall, a team that is totally outclassed in every way (like that Texas girls team that lost 100-0) ought to slow the game down. But what if you believe that your one advantage is conditioning? I don't think the results are proving the Pacers' superior conditioning to be a substantial advantage very often. In fact, I'm not sure that the Pacers are better conditioned than their opponents night in and night out. But if O'Brien believes they are, then mightn't running the opponent into the ground be a sound strategy?

Since86
01-23-2009, 02:38 PM
And the answer to the original post, of course, is this:

We're not winning a ring with our current personnel, no matter what style of play we use. So the goal is to maximize wins with the guys we have. And this style (hypothetically) gives the best chance for regular-season success, even if it doesn't lead to the Finals.

You can disagree (as many of us do) that this style leads to regular-season success, but I'm just telling you what the logic looks like.


And I would much rather teach players the way to play that will actually help them further down the road. :twocents:

That's like me stepping into a math class and the teacher handing me 'To Kill a Mocking Bird.' Sure, it's a good book and fun to read, but how is that going to help me learn math?

Teach the skills necessary to win so when you actually do get some help to the roster that put you in a competitive situation, you don't have to start from square one and completely change philosophies.

On top of that, the Suns had a roster that could compete for a title. In terms of talent, they were at the top of the list, but the style of play they used kept them out of actually being a big threat because they couldn't play playoff basketball.

For all the talk about how making the playoffs is the ultimate goal around here, you would think supporting a style of play that would actually garnish results would be the norm, but no...... Let's stick our head in the sand, and believe in the tooth fairy that JOb is the right coach, and there's nothing wrong with the way he coaches the game.

Bball
01-23-2009, 03:14 PM
[SIZE=4]
Finally, to BBall, a team that is totally outclassed in every way (like that Texas girls team that lost 100-0) ought to slow the game down. But what if you believe that your one advantage is conditioning? I don't think the results are proving the Pacers' superior conditioning to be a substantial advantage very often. In fact, I'm not sure that the Pacers [I]are better conditioned than their opponents night in and night out. But if O'Brien believes they are, then mightn't running the opponent into the ground be a sound strategy?

Since I believe we played better defense at the beginning of the year I believe our pace is a factor in its demise (as well as a lack of prioritization). So, no, I don't think we're better conditioned than the opposition (or conditioned good enough whether it's better conditioned than the opposition or not). I think we ran a fundamentally sound center out of gas in about 15 games or so. We used up TJ and his back in about 30. We're overusing Foster because he plays with a lot of energy... although I think it's Fool's gold most of the time. Jack has went from looking like a solid backup with nice defensive tendencies to a turnover machine. We have an up and coming center that could have some potential but we play at a pace that causes OBrien to hedge on using him. Diener now looks like our best PG to me... which isn't saying much except if you're going to play like we do and not care about defense anyway, Diener fits the bill just fine.

Dunleavy has been out so not much to say there. Granger has looked very good but I think he would excel in a more structured system (ala Reggie).

Of course our pace could be adjusted, as well as the defense tweaked... if defense was a priority. It's not.

-Bball

Putnam
01-23-2009, 03:31 PM
Teach the skills necessary to win so when you actually do get some help to the roster that put you in a competitive situation, you don't have to start from square one and completely change philosophies.





Do you really believe that the Pacers will have to "start from square one and completely change philosophies"?

Do you doubt that the Pacers' championship team, whenever that day comes, will be a team that can score on fast breaks? That it will be a team that can hit open jumpshots? That it will be a team that can put points on the board?

Isn't it likely that any very good Pacers team of the future will be good at the things you want (defense, control of pace, etc.) while still being good at what O'Brien is trying to instill now?

We're far enough into the season now that some fault-finding is warranted. The Pacers (except Granger) aren't exceeding anyone's expectations in any respect. But saying they're doing nothing right, that they need to start again from square one, is really too harsh.

Hicks
01-23-2009, 03:40 PM
The "can't win on just a good offense" argument prevailed in the NFL, too, until the Colts won a super Bowl. Their defense was poor until the playoffs that year, and then during the playoffs the Colts won because they were playing great on both sides of the ball. And you know what? People will continue saying "Defense wins championships."

Of course, and it's because the Colts defense won them the championship as much as any offense did. The offense with bad defense combination never got them there, but when they finally played well on both sides, they won a title. Had the 2006 Colts played the quality of defense in the playoffs that they had played in the regular season, someone else would have won the Superbowl.

Putnam
01-23-2009, 03:40 PM
I don't think we're better conditioned than the opposition (or conditioned good enough whether it's better conditioned than the opposition or not). I think we ran a fundamentally sound center out of gas in about 15 games or so. We used up TJ and his back in about 30. We're overusing Foster because he plays with a lot of energy... although I think it's Fool's gold most of the time. Jack has went from looking like a solid backup with nice defensive tendencies to a turnover machine. We have an up and coming center that could have some potential but we play at a pace that causes OBrien to hedge on using him.

-Bball

If I recall, the first words out of O'Brien's mouth at the fan jam was something about being the best conditioned team in the league.:happydanc If O'Brien believes the Pacers are the best conditioned team, that explains why the Pacers play at the pace they do.


But the results support BBall. The Pacers really aren't well-enough conditioned to keep the pace up. :cry:

Since86
01-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Simply put, yes.

In detail, it develops bad habits. Having Jeff freaking Foster of all people shooting a 17ft jumpshot with 15+ secs on the shot clock is a HORRIBLE habit for him to get used too.

When players are given all the rope the want, it's hard to pull them back in. When they get to do just about whatever the want offensively it's hard to get them to accept a more toned down role. It's hard for normal people to do it, let alone rich basketball players who have massive ego's to begin with.

It will take a lot of time/effort to get them used to playing basketball with structure, instead of letting them act like it's summer time at Rucker Park.

That's why I HATE, with a passion, gimmicks. It's like putting a bandaid on a cut off limb.

Unclebuck
01-23-2009, 03:49 PM
It is no accident that the 3 best teams in the east- Celtics, Cavs, Magic, are by a wide margin the three best defensive teams according to the most important defensive stat - defensive FG%. Celtics led the league last year in this category. Surs, Pistons in the years they won were at least in top three.

You show the the best defensive team in any given season and they usually win the championship - only exceptions in the past 10 years or so - Lakers

pacergod2
01-23-2009, 04:06 PM
Offensively, the JO era was tainted by JO's inability to pass out of the post. The offense would have been much better if he passed the ball well but he didn't and it therefore slowed the game down further. He took way too many fadeaways that clanged off the rim. He made his fair share, but when the defense can key in on one player and take away the effectiveness of the offense, then your one-dimensional player has made the team one-dimensional. JO was a different JO when he was able to put the ball on the floor from the high post and score. When he lost that ability, or the willingness to take that pounding anymore, he lost his whole offensive game and became detrimental on the offensive side of the ball.

The up-tempo pace can win championships. The problem is, you absolutely positively need to be able to get a defensive stop late in games in the playoffs. Most teams that are so proficient offensively, prioritize their offense to carry them. It can carry them through an 82 game season with teams of varying talent. You get to the post season where all teams are good, games become close and it comes down to clutch shooting late in games and getting defensive stops. If you are unable to get solid defensive stops, it makes your clutch shooting worthless and vice versa. The big difference is that if you can't get defensive stops the score changes, whereas if you can't score and neither can they, the game remains close. This is obviously outside of early game situations like controlling the tempo of the game to suit your abilities, managing timeouts and players minutes, and making key adjustments to take advantage of weaknesses in the other team. If we had Kobe Bryant on our team who plays both ends of the court as well as anybody, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Our team is just very imbalanced talent wise.

Hicks
01-23-2009, 04:52 PM
It is no accident that the 3 best teams in the east- Celtics, Cavs, Magic, are by a wide margin the three best defensive teams according to the most important defensive stat - defensive FG%. Celtics led the league last year in this category. Surs, Pistons in the years they won were at least in top three.

You show the the best defensive team in any given season and they usually win the championship - only exceptions in the past 10 years or so - Lakers

How does the pace of those teams compare to our pace? Are they higher, lower, about the same?

Because if the Pacers play at a significantly higher pace than those teams, wouldn't it be true, then, that even if the Pacers had the same defensive FG% as Boston or whomever, by allowing a faster pace, it essentially turns the other team into a "volume shooter" or "shot chucker" scorer?

You know, like how some players can put up big points, but only inefficiently by taking too many shots?

What I'm getting at is: Even if the Pacers have a good dFG%, isn't that negated if the pace is high enough for the other team to score 100+ points anyway? Isn't dFG% only as good as the amount of possessions you limit the opponent?

Give a mediocre scorer 25+ shots and he'll score a good amount of points, eventually.

ajbry
01-23-2009, 04:58 PM
Red Auerbach - the greatest coach in NBA history - ran high-tempo teams... He also ensured accountability on both ends of the floor while allowing players' natural instincts to help them along the way rather than rigid sets that prevented greatness.

Nowadays, the fast-tempo systems bear almost no legitimate resemblance. They emphasize quick shots (bad shot selection quickly follows), defense isn't a priority (at least not half-court D, but more along the lines of steals and transition points), and overall the personnel usually isn't conducive to winning in tight playoff games.

But, fast-paced offenses do capture the attention of fans and players... And some coaches love to be "ahead" of the curve even if in reality they're way behind.

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 05:00 PM
Count and I keep saying it, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

Don't confuse the lower scores that come with a slow pace to be good defense and the higher scores with a faster pace to be bad defense.

The Lakers were (almost) always in the NBA Finals during the Showtime era because they played defense well enough to start their fast breaks - they wanted the opponent to shoot long jumpers so that they could get the rebound and push the ball, and they pulled you right into it.

You need to play good defense to win. If the Suns actually played good defense, they'd have a ring by now. But you don't have to play a slow pace to win, even though that is how it has been done since '88.

Why do coaches prefer a slower pace? Because they're control freaks! Why do we watch NBA basketball? To watch the players make plays or watch the coaches be control freaks? You make the call...

Since86
01-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Why do coaches prefer a slower pace? Because they're control freaks! Why do we watch NBA basketball? To watch the players make plays or watch the coaches be control freaks? You make the call...

I didn't know players needed a fast break to make plays.

LeBron's dunk on the entire Pistons team in the ECF a few years ago, out of a half court set, is a lot more impressive than his run out dunks. Watching players make moves against actual defense is a lot more entertaining than watching a dunkfest.

If you want to watch players just play like their at a local park, then watch the And 1 tour.

I like watching GOOD basketball. When a team takes the first available open look, no matter where it is or who it is, isn't good basketball. I've said it before, and I was 100% serious. I phsyically cringe everytime I see Jeff Foster shoot outside of 5ft. How in the world people think that's entertaining to watch just baffles me. Better yet, how in the world a coach can actually praise him for shooting it makes me want to vomit.

Unclebuck
01-23-2009, 05:13 PM
How does the pace of those teams compare to our pace? Are they higher, lower, about the same?

Because if the Pacers play at a significantly higher pace than those teams, wouldn't it be true, then, that even if the Pacers had the same defensive FG% as Boston or whomever, by allowing a faster pace, it essentially turns the other team into a "volume shooter" or "shot chucker" scorer?

You know, like how some players can put up big points, but only inefficiently by taking too many shots?

What I'm getting at is: Even if the Pacers have a good dFG%, isn't that negated if the pace is high enough for the other team to score 100+ points anyway? Isn't dFG% only as good as the amount of possessions you limit the opponent?

Give a mediocre scorer 25+ shots and he'll score a good amount of points, eventually.


I have never thought about it that way. But to answer your question - I don't think so, as long as the pacers defensive rebounding is good - having increased possessions in no way would it negate a good dFG%. Sure the pacers would give up more points than those teams, but with more defensive possession, there would be more offensive possessions, so the effect is the same.

On a related point I think it is very difficult to play really good defense if the offense is fast paced - this IMO is the biggest reason the Pacers defense isn't very good

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 05:14 PM
Oh, I agree.

When Foster is shooting jumpers, you've been pulled exactly into what the Lakers of the 80s wanted you to do... feel you were so wide open that you had to take the shot even though it wasn't really a good shot.

Now I don't like that its his OWN coach coaxing him into the bad shot. Don't get me wrong.

I don't want a coach calling every play on the sideline. That is usually an isolation play. A well designed motion offense that emphasises both a pick-and-roll scheme and the right lanes for a give-and-go should take care of that.

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 05:16 PM
I have never thought about it that way. But to answer your question - I don't think so, as long as the pacers defensive rebounding is good - having increased possessions in no way would it negate a good dFG%. Sure the pacers would give up more points than those teams, but with more defensive possession, there would be more offensive possessions, so the effect is the same.

On a related point I think it is very difficult to play really good defense if the offense is fast paced - this IMO is the biggest reason the Pacers defense isn't very good

If you can get a guy to take a whole bunch of extra shots to get his 25 points, you've played good defense. It isn't the quantity of points that matter, but the rising % of wasted possessions.

Putnam
01-23-2009, 05:27 PM
Which blade of a pair of scissors is the one that cuts the paper?

Of course defense matters, and of course every very good team will be good a defense. But the way they get to be very good is by being very good at everything. Buck, the excellent defensive teams you point to are much better when they are hot on offense (or playing at a Pacers-like tempo) than otherwise.

Boston is 36-9 overall
They are 22-1 when they score over 100, and 14-8 when scoring under 100

Cleveland is 34-8 overall
They are 20-0 when they score over 100, and 14-8 when scoring under 100.

Orlando is 33-9
They are 23-2 when scoring over 100, and an unimpressive 10-7 when scoring under 100.


All three of these teams represent strong defense AND offense. That is why they are good.

Hicks
01-23-2009, 05:35 PM
I have never thought about it that way. But to answer your question - I don't think so, as long as the pacers defensive rebounding is good - having increased possessions in no way would it negate a good dFG%. Sure the pacers would give up more points than those teams, but with more defensive possession, there would be more offensive possessions, so the effect is the same.

On a related point I think it is very difficult to play really good defense if the offense is fast paced - this IMO is the biggest reason the Pacers defense isn't very good

Something else to ask: Is the Pacers' offense good enough to make up for the pace-induced high scoring of their opponent? Meaning even if the Pacers still have a good dFG%, can they match the amount of points the other team gives up?

I think the instinct of many will be to say "Yes," because the Pacers are a high-scoring team, but are they really that good, or are they simply benefitting from more possessions the same way their opponents are, and in fact, aren't even as good on offense as their opponents, hence why they lose so many times even when it's close?

Hicks
01-23-2009, 05:38 PM
If you can get a guy to take a whole bunch of extra shots to get his 25 points, you've played good defense. It isn't the quantity of points that matter, but the rising % of wasted possessions.

Exactly, and I fear that it's a mirage (sp?) in the Pacers' case because I don't think they control the ball wall enough (in other words, defensive rebounding).

Anyone have the stats for the Pacers defensive rebounding? Are they usually one-and-done on defense, or do they tend to give up offensive rebounds for the opponent? That's the key to it, I think.

CableKC
01-23-2009, 06:15 PM
One of the main reasons why I think the Pacer run a fast paced Offensive style is because it's simply more exciting to watch for fans. As Since86 said, it's gimmicky. The common fan loves to see teams score points and run at a break neck speed on the offensive end. But for more informed fans ( like many of us here on PD ), we all know that a fast paced Offense will win you games in the regular season and could even get you into the Playoffs ( as evidenced by the Warriors when Nelson returned to coach the Warriors 2 seasons ago).......but it will only take you so far UNLESS your team actually plays effective defense on the other end of the court. But as many of us here have said....I think that JO'B is the "interim" coach that was brought in to simply implement an offense that attracts fans by putting out a product that fans can be drawn to while giving us the best chance to SIMPLY return to the Playoffs.

Since we're on this topic.....do you think that IF we slowed down the pace of the offense that it would improve the defense of this team?

I'm okay with the pace that we run at......the only problem I have is that I ( like many of you ) think that JO'B can't effectively implement it for a full 4 QTRs with a shortened 8-man rotation. The glaring weakness is exposed more in the 4th QTR with a shortened Frontcourt rotation of Murphy/Foster/Rasho....when all 3 are more likely to be fatigued.

Hicks
01-23-2009, 06:32 PM
I think the Pacers should slow down a notch just to have more legs for defense and jumpshots down the stretch.

CableKC
01-23-2009, 06:36 PM
Anyone have the stats for the Pacers defensive rebounding? Are they usually one-and-done on defense, or do they tend to give up offensive rebounds for the opponent? That's the key to it, I think.
Defensive Rebounding Stats:

Home
Pacers pull down an average 35.2 DRebPG ( Ranked 1st in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 33.9 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 30th in the League )

Road
Pacers pull down an average 30.4 DRebPG ( Ranked 10th in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 32.6 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 26th in the League )

Offensive Rebounding Stats:

Home
Pacers pull down an average 11.3 ORebPRG ( Ranked 16th in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 11.3 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 20th in the League )


Road
Pacers pull down an average 11.2 ORebPRG ( Ranked 12th in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 10.5 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 7th in the League )

d_c
01-23-2009, 06:36 PM
just wanted to ask a simple question. to me the nba is hard enough, however y do coaches implement a fast paste offense where u are jacking up 3's all day...when everyone knows that you can't win a championship w/ that style...? your thoughts?

Probably because not every team has a Duncan or in his prime Shaq and you simply have to do the best with what you have. You can play exactly like the Spurs do and you'll also have very little chance at a ring because you just don't have the personnel to play it as well as they have.

You can pretty much rephrase your question another way: Why doesn't every team in the league try to somehow acquire a superstar (preferrably a bigman) who was a top 5 pick in the draft, because not having one doesn't win you a ring.

It's not like any GM out there is saying "No, I don't want Tim Duncan on my team. I prefer Steve Nash." There's a reason Tim Duncan was the #1 pick in the draft while Steve Nash was a #15 pick.

avoidingtheclowns
01-23-2009, 06:54 PM
There's a reason Tim Duncan was the #1 pick in the draft while Steve Nash was a #15 pick.

wasn't that just the canadian exchange rate?

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 07:21 PM
Defensive Rebounding Stats:

Home
Pacers pull down an average 35.2 DRebPG ( Ranked 1st in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 33.9 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 30th in the League )

Road
Pacers pull down an average 30.4 DRebPG ( Ranked 10th in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 32.6 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 26th in the League )

Offensive Rebounding Stats:

Home
Pacers pull down an average 11.3 ORebPRG ( Ranked 16th in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 11.3 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 20th in the League )


Road
Pacers pull down an average 11.2 ORebPRG ( Ranked 12th in the League )
Pacers give up an average of 10.5 DRebPG to their Opponents ( Ranked 7th in the League )

You've got to be able to figure out how many they don't get where the offense extends the possession and still scores. Maybe we can piece it together...

Home: Pacers 35.2 DRPG, opponents 11.3 ORPG. So the Pacers get 75.7% of the rebounds when the opponent misses.

Away: Pacers 30.4 DRPG, opponents 10.4 ORPG. So the Pacers get 74.5% of the rebounds when the opponent misses.

Overall, I'd say the Pacers successfully convert a missed shot into a Pacers possession 75% of the time.

I have no idea if that is a good or bad %.

Putnam
01-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Here's another way of looking at it:

Pacers = 473 offensive rebounds
Opponents=1393 defensive rebounds

Opponents = 456 offensive rebounds
Pacers = 1364 defensive rebounds

The opponents convert a Pacers miss into their possession 75.0% of the time.
The Pacers convert opponents' misses into Pacers' ball 74.7% of the time.

Pacers seem to do fine in that respect.

BlueNGold
01-23-2009, 08:11 PM
If you want to win, you need to shoot less!

Top half of the NBA in FG attempts: .401
Bottom half of the NBA in FG attempts: .599

Top 1-5: .363
6-10: .456 with Lakers (.368 without Lakers)
11-15: .383
16-20: .617
21-25: .639
26-30: .543

Unclebuck
01-23-2009, 10:14 PM
You guys are killing me with those rebounding stats.

All you have to do is look at defensive rebounding %. Pacers are at .749% which is good enough for 5th best in the NBA - so we are good there

Putnam
01-24-2009, 12:50 AM
You guys are killing me with those rebounding stats.

All you have to do is look at defensive rebounding %. Pacers are at .749% which is good enough for 5th best in the NBA - so we are good there

What's risible about using a different source to illustrate the same point and come to the same conclusion? CableKC and J were looking at the question in a reasonable way. The numbers I cited were the raw numbers from which the defensive rebounding percentage is calculated. What about any of that "kills you"?




If you want to win, you need to shoot less!

Do you really believe (as your statement implies) that shooting less causes winning? Do you also believe storks bring babies? Because those are both spurious relationships.

Hicks
01-24-2009, 01:08 AM
Here's another way of looking at it:

Pacers = 473 offensive rebounds
Opponents=1393 defensive rebounds

Opponents = 456 offensive rebounds
Pacers = 1364 defensive rebounds

The opponents convert a Pacers miss into their possession 75.0% of the time.
The Pacers convert opponents' misses into Pacers' ball 74.7% of the time.

Pacers seem to do fine in that respect.

Yet the Pacers come up just short of their opponent's success rate. Coincidence, considering all the close losses?

Unclebuck
01-24-2009, 10:37 AM
What's risible about using a different source to illustrate the same point and come to the same conclusion? CableKC and J were looking at the question in a reasonable way. The numbers I cited were the raw numbers from which the defensive rebounding percentage is calculated. What about any of that "kills you"?


I didn't intend to convey that I was upset or angry about your analysis - I guess I use the term "killing me" as a funny way.

BlueNGold
01-24-2009, 07:08 PM
Do you really believe (as your statement implies) that shooting less causes winning? Do you also believe storks bring babies? Because those are both spurious relationships.

No, I was being a bit facetious. "Shooting less" is actually a byproduct of a style of play associated with a slower pace.

The fact is, it's undeniable that teams who play at a slower pace (and consequently have lower FG attempts than the league leading Pacers) have better winning percentages. The stats are clear and it's not close.

The only real question is: Can the Pacers play at a slower pace and have more success? That's where the argument should start and end.

My daddy always said, "All I expect you to do is try, son". My mama always said, "Practice makes perfect". Well, the Pacers are not getting a chance to practice or even try a slower pace. How in the world do we know they are incapable of doing it?

The truth is, a less athletic team is MORE likely to have success with a slower pace. Even if you deny that, do we really have a problem scoring in the half court? Do we really have much greater success with a bunch of fast breaks? That's really not what I see happening. I see a solid offensive basketball team that can move the ball but often shoots before it should. Again, how does anyone know that we cannot play the more successful style of basketball when it's never coached.

Bball
01-24-2009, 07:57 PM
No, I was being a bit facetious. "Shooting less" is actually a byproduct of a style of play associated with a slower pace.

The fact is, it's undeniable that teams who play at a slower pace (and consequently have lower FG attempts than the league leading Pacers) have better winning percentages. The stats are clear and it's not close.

The only real question is: Can the Pacers play at a slower pace and have more success? That's where the argument should start and end.

My daddy always said, "All I expect you to do is try, son". My mama always said, "Practice makes perfect". Well, the Pacers are not getting a chance to practice or even try a slower pace. How in the world do we know they are incapable of doing it?

The truth is, a less athletic team is MORE likely to have success with a slower pace. Even if you deny that, do we really have a problem scoring in the half court? Do we really have much greater success with a bunch of fast breaks? That's really not what I see happening. I see a solid offensive basketball team that can move the ball but often shoots before it should. Again, how does anyone know that we cannot play the more successful style of basketball when it's never coached.

I salute you... and agree entirely.

-Bball

danman
01-24-2009, 08:53 PM
Winning basketball can be played with different styles. Rules changes affect these things as well... the grab n push style of Ewing's Knicks doesn't work these days because you can't get away with it.

The die was cast on this Pacer team with the trades. Where's the back to the basket post player?

I find it odd that hoosier basketball maven has issue with O'Brien's offense. This is classic share the ball, space the floor, movement oriented ball. It's not all iso's and pick and rolls. It gets very good results.

We're aren't just chucking the ball. We take a lot more shots these days, but without the SJax's and Tinsley's of the world, we take few poor shots.

The problem is D and it's just not clicking. Not very talented defenders, but they need to ratchet up the intensity so they can get to average on that side.

BlueNGold
01-25-2009, 01:43 AM
Winning basketball can be played with different styles. Rules changes affect these things as well... the grab n push style of Ewing's Knicks doesn't work these days because you can't get away with it.

The die was cast on this Pacer team with the trades. Where's the back to the basket post player?

I find it odd that hoosier basketball maven has issue with O'Brien's offense. This is classic share the ball, space the floor, movement oriented ball. It's not all iso's and pick and rolls. It gets very good results.

We're aren't just chucking the ball. We take a lot more shots these days, but without the SJax's and Tinsley's of the world, we take few poor shots.

The problem is D and it's just not clicking. Not very talented defenders, but they need to ratchet up the intensity so they can get to average on that side.

Yes, winning basketball can be played with different styles. However, it is rare that a team with a relatively high number of field goal attempts is successful. The reason for that can be debated all night, but it's true nonetheless.

Now, as for a back to the basket player...he shoots his clankers in Toronto...or is it Miami now. In any event, the Pacers of the 90's did not have a post scorer and excelled on offense with good shooting and ball movement...something this particular team has. Smits had a midrange game and Miller shot from the perimeter. They were the offense and it worked great without a post-up guy.

Yes, of course D is the problem. However, it would be better if the team could get back and set up...and not be worn out from running and shooting. Doesn't anyone see that our endurance is a huge problem? Anyone notice we win the first half and lose in the 4th quarter all the time? Is that because teams simply are not trying in the first half, or is that because we play relatively unathletic players with poor endurance? Could it be that our lack of athleticism might be tied a bit to endurance for the players we happen to put on the floor? Ever notice that Troy Murphy often comes up short on his threes in the latter stages of games. Maybe that's just my own perception...

And that gets to the final point. We need more athleticism in the frontcourt like Joe the Plumber needs more hair. While Baston and McRoberts are not the greatest players, they provide an ingredient this team sorely lacks. Just a pinch of the right ingredients could make a huge difference in this case. This is one reason we win games these guys get more minutes.

Justin Tyme
01-25-2009, 11:59 AM
No, I was being a bit facetious. "Shooting less" is actually a byproduct of a style of play associated with a slower pace.

The fact is, it's undeniable that teams who play at a slower pace (and consequently have lower FG attempts than the league leading Pacers) have better winning percentages. The stats are clear and it's not close.

The only real question is: Can the Pacers play at a slower pace and have more success? That's where the argument should start and end.

My daddy always said, "All I expect you to do is try, son". My mama always said, "Practice makes perfect". Well, the Pacers are not getting a chance to practice or even try a slower pace. How in the world do we know they are incapable of doing it?

The truth is, a less athletic team is MORE likely to have success with a slower pace. Even if you deny that, do we really have a problem scoring in the half court? Do we really have much greater success with a bunch of fast breaks? That's really not what I see happening. I see a solid offensive basketball team that can move the ball but often shoots before it should. Again, how does anyone know that we cannot play the more successful style of basketball when it's never coached.



I totally agree, a great post with excellent content. Unfortunately, I feel you, Bball, myself, and few others are in the minority. Run n gun with little "D" isn't the system to get this team where TPTB want to be.... the playoffs. It's going to take more wins than this team can produce with this style of game.

I get agitated and frustrated with the selection of shots I see the players take, and when they are taking them. If this team slowed down, put more concentration on good shots, and with better ball movement instead of taking quick shots, I truly believe the team would have a better record and the playoffs would have been obtainable. JMOAA

danman
01-25-2009, 08:59 PM
Yes, winning basketball can be played with different styles. However, it is rare that a team with a relatively high number of field goal attempts is successful. The reason for that can be debated all night, but it's true nonetheless.

Now, as for a back to the basket player...he shoots his clankers in Toronto...or is it Miami now. In any event, the Pacers of the 90's did not have a post scorer and excelled on offense with good shooting and ball movement...something this particular team has. Smits had a midrange game and Miller shot from the perimeter. They were the offense and it worked great without a post-up guy.

Yes, of course D is the problem. However, it would be better if the team could get back and set up...and not be worn out from running and shooting. Doesn't anyone see that our endurance is a huge problem? Anyone notice we win the first half and lose in the 4th quarter all the time? Is that because teams simply are not trying in the first half, or is that because we play relatively unathletic players with poor endurance? Could it be that our lack of athleticism might be tied a bit to endurance for the players we happen to put on the floor? Ever notice that Troy Murphy often comes up short on his threes in the latter stages of games. Maybe that's just my own perception...

And that gets to the final point. We need more athleticism in the frontcourt like Joe the Plumber needs more hair. While Baston and McRoberts are not the greatest players, they provide an ingredient this team sorely lacks. Just a pinch of the right ingredients could make a huge difference in this case. This is one reason we win games these guys get more minutes.


Eh, I disagree about Smits not being a post up player. It was perhaps forgotten near the end of his career, when his feet betrayed him, but in his prime, Smits was an effective post player. He had a decent hook, but he could also turn and shoot right in the defender's face. It wasn't all pick and pop. C'mon now. In our best years, he set up in the low block, we always fed him, and he'd usually draw a double team. How is this not being a post player? There isn't a current Pacer that ever sets up like that because they can't play with their back to the basket.

In any discussion of shots per game and going deep into the playoffs, remember the rules. For 20 years, you could play two man basketball with your 2 stars, clear everyone else to the weakside, and get busy. It took time, it was halfcourt ball. You can't do that anymore. As an aside -- eliminating this has also made the Dennis Rodman type specialists less valuable. The classic Bulls teams could hide Rodman on the offensive end, he wasn't even part of the action. Can't do that anymore, it hurts you now if a player's got no offensive game.

I don't think our endurance is bad, but I agree that a running team needs to be in great shape. And of course, I agree about the need for athleticism in the front court. A center who could run the floor and give us shotblocking would be ideal. A young Theo Ratliff. Got one?

BlueNGold
01-25-2009, 10:11 PM
Eh, I disagree about Smits not being a post up player. It was perhaps forgotten near the end of his career, when his feet betrayed him, but in his prime, Smits was an effective post player. He had a decent hook, but he could also turn and shoot right in the defender's face. It wasn't all pick and pop. C'mon now. In our best years, he set up in the low block, we always fed him, and he'd usually draw a double team. How is this not being a post player? There isn't a current Pacer that ever sets up like that because they can't play with their back to the basket.


Our best years were 98, 99 and 2000 during the latter years of his career....when you indicate he was less effective in the post due to feet problems. Tends to discount the need for a post player wouldn't you say?

In any event, everyone knows his best attribute by far was his midrange game, particularly from the baseline. It's no surprise that a 7'4" player got on the low block at times, but he was not quick enough or powerful enough to dominate on the block. He dominated from 12 feet out...and that's not the block.