Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

    Today in the 3rd edition of this series, I want to again take a detailed look at a major Pacers offseason issue. In part 1, we had a great discussion about the Jarrett Jack/T.J. Ford tandem, and looked at the various decisions the front office will have to make when evaluating those 2 players. In part 2, we discussed what we will do to improve our inside game in 2009, based on the assumptions that we have little to no money to spend and based on the fact that there is no perfect solution available to us in the draft barring a lottery miracle. Each thread I thought contained outstanding discussion from all of you, so I hope this 3rd edition does the same.

    Rarely in sports is there universal agreement on things, but in our Pacers case everyone is on the same page: To improve, the Pacers team defense simply must get better next season. Bob Kravitz wrote a nice article stating this obvious fact, and it has been discussed ad nauseum in living rooms, bars, and on message boards and talk radio all throughout the state. The fact that the single biggest flaw we had as a team this season pertained to defense is generally accepted as fact by most of the general public. The fact that I believe this is somewhat of a fallacy will be covered later in this article, but today's big question isn't just stating the obvious need for improvement defensively......today's big question is this:

    HOW can the Pacers get better defensively....what do we need to do? We all agree we need to, but now the hard work begins in figuring out how to get that done.

    I wrote a month long, 7 piece series titled "Comprehensive defense" that took about a month to write that just about killed me writing it, and some of you in reading it. In it, I painstakingly detailed my views of the Jim O'Brien team defensive scheme, so I will not attempt to try and re-hash most of that group of articles....they are available for reference in our archives should you be so inclined to read them again.

    Today, I want to try and break down some of the keys in a general sense for us to become better on the defensive end, and hopefully we can continue to have great, educational discourse on the topic.

    Here in my view are the issues:

    A. CAN WE GET BETTER AS A TEAM WITHOUT BETTER INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS FROM A DEFENSIVE PERSPECTIVE?

    This seems to be a bone of contention between our front office and our players, which by the way is a natural conflict that happens at every level of basketball. The coach always wants better players, and the person in charge of putting the team together always thinks the players he obtained are better than the coach does....it is natural and typical. In most cases, both parties are correct, and in my view that is the case here as well.

    Bird is correct in thinking last year's team underachieved defensively. Jim O'Brien over complicated and over engineered last years team defensive concepts, creating confusion more than cohesion among our 7 new players. We had wacky defensive rotations designed to try and compensate for slow of foot players and inexperienced rookies. Clearly the over helping, over rotating, complex defense that relied on help with little or no personal responsibility did not work. Our defense didn't achieve what it was meant to do, which was to protect slower, less athletic players....in reality, the scheme forced players to rotate and closeout in awkward positions, which often put already bad defenders in even tougher spots. This was a scheme and tactical failure in many ways.

    But O'Brien is also correct in criticizing our own team weaknesses even if he is the one responsible for playing such bad defenders as many minutes as he did. In Nesterovic, Murphy, Foster, and Hibbert, we clearly had the least athletic foursome of bigs of any team in the league. As he has been for many years, by default Foster was our best big inside defender, but that says more about his teammates than it does about him. We lacked size, speed, quickness, explosiveness, toughness, physicality, skill, flexibility, and most other defensive attributes a good team requires of its bigs.

    Our perimeter players weren't much better. Granger regressed (Ill cover him in detail later) and Dunleavy was predictably poor when he played at all. Rush showed promise as a rookie, and Daniels when healthy was a small positive, but in general, our wing defense wasn't the greatest either, particularly when playing in the wackily designed rotational schemes we were using.

    Our point guard were my biggest dissapointment personnel wise, and is the hardest position for me to figure out whether Bird or O'Brien have it right. Jack and Ford SHOULD be an above average point guard tandem defensively, but they simply were not in 2008-09. Jack lacked quickness to guard point guards, and the current rules rob him of using his physical strength to muscle on the perimeter. Ford was a revolving door most of the time, which stil somewhat baffles me. And in my opinion our defense became even more abysmal when these 2 played together at the same time.

    After a lot of thought and study, you know by my analysis of the point guards in the first part of this group of writings that I give O'Brien the fault here in regards to our point guard defense. I think he clearly didn't demand defense from these players enough, and drastically misused them in defending the point of attack. By choosing to have Ford not pressure the ball tightly, he took away his quickness and defensive mentality in terms of being an attacker. The first and biggest tactical mistake of 2008-09 by Jim O'Brien, it will be very interesting to see after a summer of study if he unleashes whomever our point guards are to apply major ball pressure on our opponents as they come up the floor and cross the time line, instead of having them sag so deep near the lane.

    So I think the answer here is that we need better scheming and use of our perimeter personnel we already have, but somehow we do need to improve at least somewhat our athleticism inside.....which is easier said than done.

    B. CHANGING THE MENTALITY OF THE TEAM TO COMMIT TO DEFENSE

    This needs to be a team wide effort of course, but Bird was so completely right when he challenged Granger to be the team defensive leader. This is all part of the evolution of a great player.....to continue to improve his game and be an inspiration to his teammates. Someday, Granger will be our Paul Pierce, as I have predicted for a couple of years now. His offensive game has improved dramatically, as I thought it could and would.

    But it needs to be Granger who picks up his defensive intensity and takes that type of responsibility. It is Granger who needs to come out publically and say he is committed to being a big time defender, and who inspires his teammates not just with his offensive prowess, but with his defensive improvement. When your best player is also your most interested and committed defender, you really can drastically improve your team on the defensive end quickly. Granger wasn't a committed ENOUGH defender last season....he was average. That's fine for some players, but Granger needs to hold himself to a higher standard than that, as that is WHAT THE TRULY GREAT PLAYERS DO.

    This doesn't mean I want Granger to have to guard the other teams best all game long...you know I absolutely don't want that....but I want Granger to WANT to guard them, especially in big moments, and I want him to publically and privately hold his teammates much more accountable on that end of the floor. And I also want in turn Bird and O'Brien to hold him accountable as well.

    With great powers comes great responsibility for Granger I think.


    C. CAN WE GET JUST ONE ELITE DEFENDER?

    Team defense is great of course, but just ONE BIG TIME INDIVIDUAL DEFENDER sure would make our team defense better in a hurry. Even with all of our other issues as a team, simply upgrading our wing defense to play Brandon Rush more as the season would down really helped us. Brandon is above average and is likely to get better. But adding another big time defender on the perimeter would really be a big help, just to play as part of the rotation with Granger and Rush. In fact, this still remains my number one offseason priority, since I already believe adding our future inside players is going to be extremely difficult with who is available. I don't want to add an "offensive type" wing to replace Daniels/Dunleavy....I want us to add a big time wing defender so good that Granger or Rush wouldn't be the best defender on the team.

    Acquire one big time wing defender, coach up your point guards better defensively, make marginal improvements inside either with a clever trade or lucky draft pick and we can make a pretty good jump. Pair all that with a system overhaul and better focus, and I think we can improve to the top half of the league defensively in just one season, with potential for progress in the future beyond this next season. We aren't hopeless!

    D. DO WE NEED BETTER DEFENSIVE COACHES ON OUR STAFF?

    This is a fascinating question in reality.

    We all know and have great respect for Dick Harter, widely considered a defensive guru for his long tenure as an NBA coach.

    But in reality, Harter is 79 years old, and no matter what anyone says, the grind of NBA schedule and the travel has to be difficult for a man of his age. I don't think we can just rely on Harter to be take back the reins and have all of our problems solved.

    Having said that, Harter does believe in a lot more individual responsibility from a defensive standpoint than all of you are giving him credit for. I can't for a second believe that the odd rotations, odd help patterns, and odd personnel groupings we played last year were by his design....they have the earmark of our somewhat control freak head coach.

    So these facts bring me to an uncomfortable conclusion: I think we need a coaching staff overhaul from an assistants perspective. This has to be done delicately though, because I am also completely opposed to staff changes that the head coach doesnt make himself....you can't pick a head coach's assistants for him, it simply doesnt work.

    But, this is why Larry makes the big bucks! He needs to PERSUADE O'Brien to make the changes that are long overdue.....and one of the moves has to involve Dick Harter. So here is what I would basiclaly do:

    -Move Harter upstairs to work with Bird in a more "consultant" type role. Harter can be involved big time, but he can look at things from a longer point of view. He can sit with Bird during games, watch a lot of film, and sort of "coach the coaches".

    -We need to thin the coaching staff to give everyone clearer responsibilities. I loved it when Bird only had 2 full time assistant coaches, and I think we are set up well to do that again if we so choose. We need a clear dilineation of duties, instead of the hodgepodge of people we have now. Just having O'Brien's past assistants be with him again because he likes them isn't necessary.....we need one of the better defensive assistants to take over our defensive responsibilites, so O'Brien can coach more of the big picture.

    I don't know who I would hire personally to fill these roles, but I bet Bird and Harter do have someone in mind....now they just need to get JOB to buy in. O'Brien clearly needs better help in my view.....my overall guess is that we have some of the least involved assistant coaches in the league. I will try and think of some recommended names, and if you are so inclined you could do the same. I think one of the best and easiest ways teams can improve are to spend money on things the salary cap doesnt effect, such as having the very best assistants, the very best statisticians and scouts, etc etc.

    E. CAN WE USE OUR OFFENSE TO MAKE OUR DEFENSE BETTER?


    The answer to this is ABSOLUTELY!

    There is this fallacy out there among the masses that our Pacers offense was something great last year. Jim O'Brien indeed gave our team a fighting chance by being perhaps the best coach in the league in coming up with a way to play that gave our undermanned team a chance each night. Do you guys realize how hard it is to coach offense when you have absolutely no post up game and have to rely on jumpers? Playing team offense with no back to the basket scoring is very difficult, but JOB did a great job installing the passing game/motion offense and getting the players to buy into it.

    But while he got one of the lesser talented teams offensively to be reasonably good, it is no doubt that the effort and time it took to make our offense work in turn hurt our team defense. The very quick pace we played at (3rd in the league) helped us get open shots but also left us vulnerable, sapping our legs and minds away from the defensive task, and occasionally leaving us with an unbalanced floor to protect. Our long jumpers were great when we made them, but when we didn't the long rebounds they produced gave fast break chances right back to the opponent.

    So, what do we do on offense to help our defense while improving our overall game?

    1. WE NEED TO PLAY SLIGHTLY SLOWER PACE. I don't want us to slow down much, but we clearly need to play a game more regulated to both become more EFFICIENT offensively and to somewhat slow down the breakneck pace we played at last year. O'Brien can achieve this by calling slightly more "set plays" from the bench, just to force us to not jack up the quick jumper occasionally. I don't think he needs to call many more, but he can increase his set play percentage by around 10% to 20% or so and still be ok I think. I think a winning formula for us would be to be about 10th in pace next year instead of 3rd.

    2. WE NEED TO SOMEHOW DEVELOP A BACK TO THE BASKET GAME. When the ball goes inside, it slows the game down some, and produces closer shots that dont rebound as far. It also produces more wide open shots on the perimeter from kickouts.

    O'Brien can do this with current personnel I hope. We need Granger to become a post up threat on occasion. We need (if he is here) Jarrett Jack to back in his man if he is guarded by a smaller player. We need Hibber to be a much bigger focus of the offense when he is playing, in fact we almost need to force him the ball on occasion early in games to establish him. We also need to try and get more fouls shots per game, and a post game can do that for you...enabling you to set your defense more often.

    Another thing O'Brien can do is to study a really good tactician in his own backyard in terms of designing set plays for post people: Butler's Brad Stephens. No team in America I have seen sets more well designed screens and situations for its post people than Butler. O'Brien can study him and all other coaches all over the globe in order to improve his craft this summer. If we expect the players to improve, then it is fair to ask the coaches to do the same!

    Butler's use of staggered double screens inside to help free up Matt Howard are very well designed and concieved, and have the added benefit of being mostly unused in the NBA currently.

    F. WHY DO WE FOUL SO MUCH, AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO FIX IT?

    We get killed by the free throw disparity, mainly because we hack more than almost all other teams in the league.

    We need to cut this down obviously. This a teamwide issue, and doesnt have just one answer. Added athleticism and quickness solves a lot of it, as many of our fouls come from helpers trying to over rotate. Better perimeter defense straight up is needed, so we need more accountability as individuals outside and better players. And one nice shotblocker to discourage drivers would help a ton, if it comes with all the other improvements as well. We also need to do the things I recommended in the comprehensve defense threads, such as force players to drive middle instead of baseline, so our help could be nearer the ball and be forced to move less.


    No question, the Pacers success and failure in 2009-2010 will largely hinge on how much improvement our team defense can achieve. Seeing the problem is easy.....solving the problem is much more difficult.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

    That's a lot of info to has through and the only thing I'll reply to right now is E.

    The Pacers (comprised of this current roster) would not benefit from playing at a slower pace offensively. As much as you hate seeing the quick shots go up and the bombing of 3s, the roster as constructed is simply not built to be a good half court team in any way shape or form for the following reasons:

    -No low post offensive player who can score and/or command double teams.

    -No player to create off the dribble except for Ford, who can't finish well at the rim, should be limit his forays into the lane due to his health and is often out of control.

    -No player with the skill and stamina to spend an entire game moving w/o the ball through screens to get open.

    -A PF in Murphy who would physically tire out faster playing in a grinding, slow paced game battling against physically superior bigmen.

    -Lack of a reliable two man pick/roll game.

    I think in this case, JOB's idea of getting up a quick, open shots before the defense could set up and really expose the Pacers lack of halfcourt offensive options was the right thing to do.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      That's a lot of info to has through and the only thing I'll reply to right now is E.

      The Pacers (comprised of this current roster) would not benefit from playing at a slower pace offensively. As much as you hate seeing the quick shots go up and the bombing of 3s, the roster as constructed is simply not built to be a good half court team in any way shape or form for the following reasons:

      -No low post offensive player who can score and/or command double teams.

      -No player to create off the dribble except for Ford, who can't finish well at the rim, should be limit his forays into the lane due to his health and is often out of control.

      -No player with the skill and stamina to spend an entire game moving w/o the ball through screens to get open.

      -A PF in Murphy who would physically tire out faster playing in a grinding, slow paced game battling against physically superior bigmen.

      -Lack of a reliable two man pick/roll game.

      I think in this case, JOB's idea of getting up a quick, open shots before the defense could set up and really expose the Pacers lack of halfcourt offensive options was the right thing to do.

      I'm not asking for a total slowdown game, I'm just saying a slight easing up of the pace from a tactical standpoint might make sense. Overall, I agree with your points. You could make the argument that we played too small of a lineup last year, and that exascerbated the need to play too quickly at times. Simply not playing Ford and Jack together would I think by itself let us slow down just a bit.

      Your points about lack of a screen/roll game are right on, and you are correct in saying that this style fit Murphy like a glove. Playing just SLIGHTLY slower shouldnt affect Murph too much I hope, but if he played less minutes next year that really wouldn't bother me that much, as I feel he hurts us as much as he helps.
      Last edited by thunderbird1245; 04-30-2009, 09:20 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        That's a lot of info to has through and the only thing I'll reply to right now is E.

        The Pacers (comprised of this current roster) would not benefit from playing at a slower pace offensively. As much as you hate seeing the quick shots go up and the bombing of 3s, the roster as constructed is simply not built to be a good half court team in any way shape or form for the following reasons:

        -No low post offensive player who can score and/or command double teams.

        -No player to create off the dribble except for Ford, who can't finish well at the rim, should be limit his forays into the lane due to his health and is often out of control.

        -No player with the skill and stamina to spend an entire game moving w/o the ball through screens to get open.

        -A PF in Murphy who would physically tire out faster playing in a grinding, slow paced game battling against physically superior bigmen.

        -Lack of a reliable two man pick/roll game.

        I think in this case, JOB's idea of getting up a quick, open shots before the defense could set up and really expose the Pacers lack of halfcourt offensive options was the right thing to do.
        I'm backing d_c on this. I'm still at work, so I need to read tbird's entire post, but I'm opposed to any significant slow down of the offensive pace because we don't have the personnel.

        I am well aware that our offense is only average, and I've never bought the idea that we have plenty of firepower. Truth is that Danny's the only guy that is a truly reliable scorer. The reason that we saw TJ or JJ dominating the ball so much was because, as ugly as it was, it was probably the best option we had most of the time.

        Slowing down the game might possibly help the defense, but not as much as it would hurt the offense, and the team as a whole.

        more later...

        Note: posted without reading tbird's response.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

          On the pace...

          I think it will naturally slow down as Roy develops.

          I don't have stats to back it up, but my feeling was our pace slowed toward the end of the year when he started.

          Of course, when you pick up 2 fouls early in the first quarter it's not going to slow the pace that much...
          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

          - Jimmy Buffett

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

            Originally posted by Doug View Post
            On the pace...

            I think it will naturally slow down as Roy develops.

            I don't have stats to back it up, but my feeling was our pace slowed toward the end of the year when he started.

            Of course, when you pick up 2 fouls early in the first quarter it's not going to slow the pace that much...
            Our pace peaked in January, dropped down in Feb & Mar, but then was the second highest (almost 98) in April. I don't have the splits with Roy starting/not starting. Detroit was the only game in April played below our annual pace.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              Our pace peaked in January, dropped down in Feb & Mar, but then was the second highest (almost 98) in April. I don't have the splits with Roy starting/not starting. Detroit was the only game in April played below our annual pace.
              Where did you get the per game Pace stats? I checked basketball-reference.com but couldn't find a running pace, just our total for the year.

              I did some quick calculations from their stats and what I found matches what you posted. But I hacked the 'pace' calculations together quickly - not a whole lot of scientific rigor in my work on that.
              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

              - Jimmy Buffett

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                Our offense should actually improve with a little control and discipline, as it did later in the season when injuries forced us to play a little slower pace overall during the times we were very shorthanded due to injuries.

                Yes, our style does indeed level the playing field in games because of the natural tendency of most NBA players to prefer playing at a fast pace that allows them more opportunities in a less structured style of play. This applies to both teams on the court in such a game in most cases. Only true disciplinarian coaches are able to keep their teams from following us into an uptempo game that leads to their overall efficiency declining due to both offensive and defensive mistakes and therefore bringing superior teams down to our level, but also allowing lesser teams to become equally competitive with us. Hence, we had far more close games than other teams, with our performance at the end of the season in such games improving due to our personnel changes that were forced to occur due to injury, not willingly made by the coaching staff.

                Ultimately, as Bird is apparently beginning to communicate to the coaching staff, uptempo offense cannot be the only answer, and defense needs to be the primary focus. To maximize effectiveness, there should be a mix of offensive tempo types employed in each game, with more of the uptempo applied to situations where defensively generated possessions lead to fast break opportunities, hopefully off of perimeter defenders getting steals and being able to get out in front of the opponents defenders who had been trying to work the ball toward the basket and failing due to our defense. If Bird is successful in changing the mindset of the coaching staff in the ways he has hinted at lately, barring cataclysmic injuries, our team should improve a lot this year without any personnel changes. If we somehow can upgrade our interior defense through offseason trades or the draft at the same time, after a period of adjustment, we could actually become a team that others truly have to respect and plan for, rather than their simply assuming that they will outscore us without much preparation.

                Yes, I am a fan of Rick Carlisle, Larry Brown, Jerry Sloan, and other more traditional coaches. Their ways are far from the only way to play, but in order to have consistent long term success, a team must have a foundation in fundamental approaches to the game and then bring in the other more complex tactics when they have mastered the fundamentals. Unfortunately, either this is being overlooked, not communicated effectively, or not being grasped by the players. Likely a combination of all three in various combinations throughout the team.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                  Great analysis as always Tbird

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                    Originally posted by Doug View Post
                    Where did you get the per game Pace stats? I checked basketball-reference.com but couldn't find a running pace, just our total for the year.

                    I did some quick calculations from their stats and what I found matches what you posted. But I hacked the 'pace' calculations together quickly - not a whole lot of scientific rigor in my work on that.
                    BBR has the formula for pace, and I've been tracking it as part of my draft database, etc. My numbers don't tie perfectly to what BBR reports. For some reason, they (my numbers) are just a little slower, maybe 0.5 to 0.75 possessions, but they trend the same way.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                      My take on this is that there's some validity to multiple points presented. IMO JOB has got to simplify the overall defensive scheme. Perhaps with a year of it under their collective belts, they'll play it more effectively. However, I feel like it just asks too much.

                      The impetus to commit to a defense overall can come from whatever level, but ultimately will have to be embraced by the head coach. I could be wrong, but I see the possibility of changing some of the assistant staff as not very likely. On the other hand, Bird having to convince or prod JOB about some of the defensive issues seems logical. We shall see what transpires.

                      An upgrade in individual defenders would help, too, regardless of what happens with our system. I suppose there's a lot of possibilities but thinking semi-realistically T-Will and Shelden Williams are an example of what we might be able to cobble together. TBird may have in mind a more experienced guy for the wing defense piece. Then said guy might be able to contribute more right away. That would be fine by me, as well, whoever it might be.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        BBR has the formula for pace, and I've been tracking it as part of my draft database, etc. My numbers don't tie perfectly to what BBR reports. For some reason, they (my numbers) are just a little slower, maybe 0.5 to 0.75 possessions, but they trend the same way.
                        Great, thanks.
                        You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                        All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                        - Jimmy Buffett

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          -We need to thin the coaching staff to give everyone clearer responsibilities. I loved it when Bird only had 2 full time assistant coaches, and I think we are set up well to do that again if we so choose. We need a clear dilineation of duties, instead of the hodgepodge of people we have now. Just having O'Brien's past assistants be with him again because he likes them isn't necessary.....we need one of the better defensive assistants to take over our defensive responsibilites, so O'Brien can coach more of the big picture.
                          I agree with this.....Back then Assistant Carlise(offense) and Assistant Harter (defense)

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                            I've thought a lot about the topic of defense - and tried to answer the question - why aren't the Pacers aren't a better defensive team.

                            I really have nothing new to add besides things I've discussed in the past. O'Brien says they really focus on defense in practice - is he lying - doesn't he realize what it takes to play good defense in the NBA. I do know that he was able to get a poor defensive team in Boston to become one of the better defensive teams in the league. Unless I see practices as compared to other really good teams - I don't know.

                            Two things I do know however:
                            This system of defense is not some wild concoction that has never been shown to work in the NBA. The Celtics run it very well and I think the Celtics system is about 90% the same as the pacers. They flood the strong side - they are always helping and recovering. The difference is the Celtics have much more talent defensively and are more committed to it as a team. So I do not blame the system - it is IMO well suited to todays NBA and to the current defensive rules in the NBA

                            So if it isn't the sytsem than whaT IS IT. The defensive talent is lacking, but I don't see the commitment, the trust from the players. Is that coaching fault - I don't know - maybe at least partially., I also think the style of offense is not condusive to playing great defense.

                            OK, I'm rambling

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis:2009 offseason Big questions, part 3

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              I'm backing d_c on this. I'm still at work, so I need to read tbird's entire post, but I'm opposed to any significant slow down of the offensive pace because we don't have the personnel.
                              I still don't understand comments like this. It's just backwards to the way I've always looked at basketball. If you don't have the horses you slow it down, not speed things up. You want to maximize your own opportunities and minimize the opponent's opportunities. You want to have the legs underneath you to lock down the other team when you really need a stop.

                              -Bball
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X