PDA

View Full Version : Pacers lost to Pistons because of the backcourt



Unclebuck
07-09-2004, 09:37 AM
Something has been driving me crazy for the past few weeks.

Many Pacers fans are stating that the reason the Pacers lost to the Pistons is because of the frontcourt. The theory goes that if only Foster could shoot the ball the Pacers would have won.

The reason Foster was replaced in the lineup was not because of Jeff. It was because the Pacers backcourt was so anemic that the Pacers had to take drastic measures to try and get a little scoring, partially because Tinsley was hurt and partially because Reggie was not producing.

Foster was defending Sheed very, very well. Some have made the point that Ben was abusing Jeff, well Jeff was guarding Sheed, so I don't know how you can make that claim.

Question: Is Ben a better offensive player than Jeff ? I don't think he is, they are even, Jeff is a better free throw shooter, a better passer, I say they are even. At worst Ben is only marginally better

Was Ben ever taken out of the lineup? Silly question right ? Well the Pistons won the championship because they have enough offense surrounding Ben. Pacers need to get enough offense surrounding Jeff. (hyperbole to make a point)

Before any screams at me, Ben is a much better player than Jeff, that is not my point, I am only talking about offense right now.

Pacers lost to the Pistons because their backcourt dominated the Pacers, and also Ron struggled against Prince. Pacers did not lose because of Jeff Foster, Jeff did his usual thing, and his usual thing was good enough to help the Pacers to win 61 games.

One other thing Pacers won game #4 at Detroit for many reasons, yes Croshere playing well was one of those many. But Cro did not even start in game #6 and he was horrible in game #5

Suaveness
07-09-2004, 09:44 AM
You put it magnificantly. See, i don't know why people are going on about making our center position better. We did fine with Foster in the lineup, and I though he played fine in the Detroit series. The only thing that held us back in the series was the lack of outside shooting.

We have a very good frontcourt, but if we don't have the guards to complement them, then it goes for naught. We cannot continue to take it inside if they collapse on the interior men, and they need someone to kick out to. Usually Reggie would be able to do this, but as we have seen, he is not able to perform like he used to.

The one thing that is lacking on this team is a shooter. A SG that can knock shots from the outside consistantly. I think Fred can become that player, but I definitely would not mind adding another. And also James has that touch, and it would definitely help if Bender got his act into gear. But adding a SG that can hit outside shots is a must if we are going to beat Detroit.

Ragnar
07-09-2004, 09:45 AM
Exactly Buck we need a 2 not a 5

PacerMan
07-09-2004, 10:28 AM
Naw.
Hamilton dominated Reggie, but Tins was hurt and so was Freddie so I don't think you can fairly compare. AJ played very well and Artest guarded hamilton well.

"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.

THAT'S why we lost. :cry:

sixthman
07-09-2004, 10:29 AM
Actually, in the playoffs Ben was a better offensive player than Jeff.

But that's not all bad news.

I think we have reason to hope Jeff's offensive game will continue to improve: If Ben's did, anyone's can. ;)

Unclebuck
07-09-2004, 10:33 AM
"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.




I respectfully think you need to watch all 6 games again. There was nothing soft about that series.

if I made a list of 10 possible reasons, the Pacers being soft would not make the list

75Ranger
07-09-2004, 10:35 AM
I agree the main reason we lost was because our backcourt couldn't put any points on the board. Ideally I would like to see us add a two guard that can get us 12-15pts a game and upgrade our backup pg spot with somebody like a Troy Hudson or Damon Jones or even a Jason Terry if we can get him straight up for Al.

While our lack of backcourt scoring was our biggest problem our second biggest problem was our top 3 players had a very poor series against the pistons. Oneal was held in check all series and really never took games over when we needed him to, Artest forced shot after shot and Al didn't do much on the offensive end either even though he did a good job defensively and rebounding wise. Hopefully balancing our team out with shooters will give Artest and Oneal an easier time to score around the basket.

It also wouldn't hurt to add another big man to our roster either.Harrison might turn out to be a great pick but do we really want to count on the 29th pick in the first round to be a big contributer this year. Thats very risky in my oppinion.

MagicRat
07-09-2004, 10:42 AM
Something that has been driving me crazy since I read the first post in this thread is the fact that Artest going 31-104 (.298) (including 6-31 from 3(.194)) barely rates a mention....:p


I like SF's that can shoot......:p:p

Shade
07-09-2004, 10:59 AM
As much as it pains me to say this, the Pacers lost the series mostly because of Reggie. Not only was he ineffective on the offensive end, but Rip absolutely torched him on the defensive end.

No slight to Reg intended -- he's just not a good defender. Ron having to switch between Rip and Prince (whoever was hottest at the time) put us at a major disadvantage.

It doesn't help either that JO settled for mostly outside shots instead of taking it inside.

Our frontcourt could use an upgrade, but I'm content with it for the most part. Harrison will almost certainly provide more than Pollard did last season.

We need a SG without giving up more than Al and Pollard, and maybe a superior back-up PG to Tins (I'm still not sold on AJ at all).

Arcadian
07-09-2004, 11:04 AM
I thought all season long when we lost we lost because of our backcourt's inability to score.

bulletproof
07-09-2004, 11:06 AM
"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.

Good Lord man, did you see game 4? We absolutely demolished the Pistons because we had someone (Cro) who was knocking down the long shot and drawing Big Ben out of the paint so Al, Ron and Jermaine could pound away on the inside. If ever there was a case to be made that all this team really needs is a consistent outside threat, game 4 was it.

Roy Munson
07-09-2004, 11:13 AM
Something that has been driving me crazy since I read the first post in this thread is the fact that Artest going 31-104 (.298) (including 6-31 from 3(.194)) barely rates a mention....:p


I like SF's that can shoot......:p:p


I agree. We lost the series because Artest went nuts and refused to pass the ball, and took WAY too many horrible shots that had little chance of going in.

I also couldn't understand how many minutes Carlisle was giving Reggie given the way Reggie was playing, especially the way he was being abused on defense, but that might have had something to do with Freddie's injured shoulder.

I believe the Pacers have already upgraded at the 5 considerably through the draft. It might take a couple seasons, but DH will be a pretty good player.

Unclebuck
07-09-2004, 11:15 AM
"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.

Good Lord man, did you see game 4? We absolutely demolished the Pistons because we had someone (Cro) who was knocking down the long shot and drawing Big Ben out of the paint so Al, Ron and Jermaine could pound away on the inside. If ever there was a case to be made that all this team really needs is a consistent outside threat, game 4 was it.



BP I know you weren't addressing your comments to me, but in case I was not clear, yes lack of outside shooting killed us, and the best place to get outside shooting is from the guards. Sure Cro helped in game #4, but that hurt other parts of the Pacers game. Fred helped in game #5

Suaveness
07-09-2004, 11:17 AM
Prince did a really good job defending Artest. That has to be taken into consideration. We lost because there was no outside shooting at all. Ron is not the reason.

bulletproof
07-09-2004, 11:23 AM
"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.

Good Lord man, did you see game 4? We absolutely demolished the Pistons because we had someone (Cro) who was knocking down the long shot and drawing Big Ben out of the paint so Al, Ron and Jermaine could pound away on the inside. If ever there was a case to be made that all this team really needs is a consistent outside threat, game 4 was it.



BP I know you weren't addressing your comments to me, but in case I was not clear, yes lack of outside shooting killed us, and the best place to get outside shooting is from the guards. Sure Cro helped in game #4, but that hurt other parts of the Pacers game. Fred helped in game #5.

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with your analysis, UB. Cro knocking down those shots in game 4 is not an indication that we need more size, it's an indication that we need a consistent long-range rifleman to draw defenders out of the paint so Ron and Jermaine can go to work on the inside where they're more effective.

MSA2CF
07-09-2004, 11:24 AM
I don't think the backcourt of the Pacers was "the problem." I think the two things that led to the Pacers' ECF losses were execution (and lack thereof) and the Pistons' defense.

Suaveness
07-09-2004, 11:29 AM
Execution was fine. And our defense played every bit as good as theirs. But when push comes to shove, they hit their shots when they needed to. Rip especially. We did not. We could not hit a jumper. So we lost.

Anthem
07-09-2004, 11:35 AM
Not to be Mr. Sour Grapes, but after a lot of carping by certain announcers (DURN YOU DOC RIVERS!) the refs started treating Ron differently than they did in the first two rounds. Stuff that used to be "and 1" became "offensive foul / turnover."

MSA2CF
07-09-2004, 11:37 AM
Execution was fine. And our defense played every bit as good as theirs. But when push comes to shove, they hit their shots when they needed to. Rip especially. We did not. We could not hit a jumper. So we lost.

I think you contradicted yourself.

Suaveness
07-09-2004, 11:37 AM
We had a backcourt that was afraid/incapable of shooting/hitting any of the numerous open shots they got. Rip Hamilton was neither afraid nor incapable of shooting/hitting those same shots. That was the difference in the series.


Yeah, and it didn't help that Tinsley was hurt badly. He was actually playing well in the Miami series.

Rip killed us. He kept hitting shot after shot, and we couldn't hit.

Suaveness
07-09-2004, 11:40 AM
Execution was fine. And our defense played every bit as good as theirs. But when push comes to shove, they hit their shots when they needed to. Rip especially. We did not. We could not hit a jumper. So we lost.

I think you contradicted yourself.


When I think of execution, I think of getting the fundamentals right. Being at the right place at the right time. Set the good picks. Block out and get rebounds.

We were in the right place at the right time. And in the interior, we made our shots, but outside we did not. But whatever.

MSA2CF
07-09-2004, 11:43 AM
When I think of execution, I think of hitting shots that should be made.

themachotaco
07-09-2004, 11:46 AM
Pieces of what everyone is saying is correct, but I think it all (lack of G scoring, Artest's low %, Reggie ineffective, JO not taking over games) ties back to this:
:idea:
we were an easy team to defend.

Yes, the Pistons are a great defensive team, and yes they made us and the Lakers look very bad on offense. That's because both IND and LA had similar offensive styles -- rely on two players, one in the paint and one on the wing to get you all of your scoring. No one else in any of those two series really made an impact on the offensive end.

For the Pacers on the O-end, our only scoring threats were JO and Artest, and Larry Brown knew it. The defense could collapse on either of those two players when they got the ball. Foster couldn't hit shots, Reggie wouldn't take shots, and Tinsley was limited to sloshing in the lane like a fish out of water.

Our bench did not provide much more of a challenge. Harrington just hasn't proven consistency on offense in the playoffs. Bender hasn't proved it ever. Fred was hurt. AJ is not really a serious o-threat. Croshere was able to become a threat in Game 4 because suddenly instead of the Pistons using 5 on 2, they had to go to 5 on 3 which is not what LB had conditioned them to do.

LB's strategy was the perfect set-up to beat an unbalanced team like IND or LA. He forced Artest or JO to try and beat us. JO got hurt and was limited; Artest tried to take over and had no succcess (we all learned that Ron is nowhere near ready to be a team's #1 option).

Meanwhile, LB attacked us on D at our weakest point -- SG. Rip Hamilton went off on us because of our backcourts inability to stop him. Did Billups have a huge (or MVP series) against us? No, dispite being banged up Tins was able to contain him, with AJ's help. Did Rasheed have a huge series against us? That's a toss-up. We did a 50-50 job on him I guess.

Against LA, Brown changed his strategy. Now it was "force Shaq and Kobe to beat us 5 on 2" and "attack their weaknesses: PG and PF." Why did New Jersey put up a good fight versus Detroit? They had more scoring threats. Kidd, Jefferson and Martin stretched their D more than any other team in the POs.

We got beat because we were easy to defend.

Is Jeff a good enough center for us to excell in the regular season? Yes, he proved it this year. But, do we need an offensive-threat at the 5 in the playoffs? You bet. We need offensive-threats at the 1 and 2 as well. We need a 5 on 5 contest, and in that case you allow your top guys to beat their defenders.

A new SG is our most apparent need. C is next on the 'wish-list,' but at this point based on what is out there, I think it's just a wish.

beast23
07-09-2004, 12:48 PM
BS! BS! BS!

We DID NOT lose this series because of anything Detroit did offensively!

We held Detroit well within the limits that our defense held all of our opponents throughout the season.

The primary reason, and by far the most major reason, we lost the series is because we could not supply any consistent perimeter shooting.

I would agree with Buck that this responsibility is usually associated with the SG position, therefore the majority of the responsibility falls on the backcourt.

But as proven by Croshere's performance in one of the games, it really didn't matter where those perimeter points were generated from, the important thing really was that we had someone who could produce them. Clearly we did not.

Those of you who would blame Artest, I think you are a little misguided. I do blame Artest for holding the ball too long on several occassions.

But, I do not blame Artest for unsuccessfully attempting to provide perimeter scoring. He correctly perceived what the team needed and what would open up our offense.... scoring from the perimeter. He tried to provide it. He just failed. He couldn't hit any perimeter shots any better than Reggie or anyone else.

SkipperZ
07-09-2004, 12:52 PM
i agree that this team needs more consistent outside threats. we need an offensive minded sg. but i think its clear that we could definitely use more beef up front. foster is not a bruiser by any means, then theres jermaine, and after that no real SIZE (unless you count pollard or rookie harrison. heck pollard is our best true center... i refuse to think the 29th pick in the draft is any better as a rookie). Adding a veteran center capable of starting who can either bang inside or block shots would help tremendously.

Having two shot blockers instead of one helps the defense SO much in my opinion.

Jermaine canNOT shoot under 47% this season and have us win in my mind. And yes, another outside threat would help in that regard, but so would a center capable of taking some focus off of Jermaine. (Jermainne becoming a better passer out of the post would help as well)

so yea i agree we need outside shooting, but i see nothing wrong with the pacers trying to get a dampier for a reasonable price, or trading for a banger or shotblocker or center that can hit the 15 footer with regularity.

and yes i know if we beat detroit we mite have won the championship. Probably would have. but i dont like using one team or one series as a blueprint of building a team. If the pacers keep trying to make a team to counter the pistons, and the pistons end up getting knocked out of the playoffs by another team, then the blueprint goes to waste. The pacers should try to get better as a team, not try to get better than the pistsons.

what if we beat the pistons and shaq scored 35 a game to sweep us in the finals. Then everyone would be saying that we needed help in the frontcourt to counter the mighty western conference teams.

honestly, we could use help at 2 positions...

RA231
07-09-2004, 12:57 PM
i agree that this team needs more consistent outside threats. we need an offensive minded sg. but i think its clear that we could definitely use more beef up front. foster is not a bruiser by any means, then theres jermaine, and after that no real SIZE (unless you count pollard or rookie harrison. heck pollard is our best true center... i refuse to think the 29th pick in the draft is any better as a rookie). Adding a veteran center capable of starting who can either bang inside or block shots would help tremendously.

Having two shot blockers instead of one helps the defense SO much in my opinion.

Jermaine canNOT shoot under 47% this season and have us win in my mind. And yes, another outside threat would help in that regard, but so would a center capable of taking some focus off of Jermaine. (Jermainne becoming a better passer out of the post would help as well)

so yea i agree we need outside shooting, but i see nothing wrong with the pacers trying to get a dampier for a reasonable price, or trading for a banger or shotblocker or center that can hit the 15 footer with regularity.

and yes i know if we beat detroit we mite have won the championship. Probably would have. but i dont like using one team or one series as a blueprint of building a team. If the pacers keep trying to make a team to counter the pistons, and the pistons end up getting knocked out of the playoffs by another team, then the blueprint goes to waste. The pacers should try to get better as a team, not try to get better than the pistsons.

what if we beat the pistons and shaq scored 35 a game to sweep us in the finals. Then everyone would be saying that we needed help in the frontcourt to counter the mighty western conference teams.

honestly, we could use help at 2 positions...



Agreed

bulletproof
07-09-2004, 01:07 PM
BS! BS! BS!

We DID NOT lose this series because of anything Detroit did offensively!

We held Detroit well within the limits that our defense held all of our opponents throughout the season.

The primary reason, and by far the most major reason, we lost the series is because we could not supply any consistent perimeter shooting.

I would agree with Buck that this responsibility is usually associated with the SG position, therefore the majority of the responsibility falls on the backcourt.

But as proven by Croshere's performance in one of the games, it really didn't matter where those perimeter points were generated from, the important thing really was that we had someone who could produce them. Clearly we did not.

Those of you who would blame Artest, I think you are a little misguided. I do blame Artest for holding the ball too long on several occassions.

But, I do not blame Artest for unsuccessfully attempting to provide perimeter scoring. He correctly perceived what the team needed and what would open up our offense.... scoring from the perimeter. He tried to provide it. He just failed. He couldn't hit any perimeter shots any better than Reggie or anyone else.

Exactly what I said. I can't even believe there's anyone who would debate this when we all saw it with our own eyes. Rasheed and Ben never had to leave the paint until game 4, and when they did, they got clobbered. Funny word, clobbered.

Arcadian
07-09-2004, 01:08 PM
I think it is important to note that Cro was important in game 4, too, because it forced both wallaces to guard someone. Most teams it won't matter that much because they don't have two good big defenders and a great weakside defender in Ben. This was just a bad match up for Foster.

Could the answer be to give Foster shots during the regular season getting him involved and confident so that in the post season he isn't a liablity? It is what Brown did with Ben this season and the regualar season faith in Jones paid off this post season, too.

Hicks
07-09-2004, 01:24 PM
Exactly what I said. I can't even believe there's anyone who would debate this when we all saw it with our own eyes. Rasheed and Ben never had to leave the paint until game 4, and when they did, they got clobbered. Funny word, clobbered.

While it's true we need outside shooting/scoring, I doubt our 2 will draw either Wallace out of the paint. The reason Cro did is because he's a big man, thus one of the Wallace's is assigned to guard him. If Cro shoots 3's, they have to follow him out there.

They won't have to come out for a 2 guard.

Still, getting more scoring/shooting from their is important.

able
07-09-2004, 02:00 PM
1 + 1 = 2

that has been that way as long as we agreed on numbers.

Look at the series that way and you will see that most of what UB says is correct;

Why do things happen, why are players in-effective?

look at this:

game 4, JO gets hurt, yet the series are 2 all, what is going on in the meanwhile and in earlier series?

Tins shot more, at a high percentage, Ron was a monster, Reggie did his bit, JO was THE deflector, Jeff did his (good) work, we were hard to beat, they beat us at home, we returned the favour.

Tins' injury aggrivated, he became less effective, so passing went down, more minutes for AJ (who played a better series then he played a game all series) does cause slower play, less passing.
With one less PG to defend, JO being less effective due to the injury in game 4, a game he was like a monster untill then, the defense can concentrate on the real theats left.
Reggie and Ron get all the attention from a defensive point of view, because in all reality they are the only real threats left, Tins gets gradually worse and can not get enough lift to shoot, or make a lay-up, JO can not go inside as he wants to so less double (triple) teaming on him and time to defend Ron and Reg.

Result: more "hard shots" lower percentage, less scoring.

The bench did what they could, but they are "bench players" (yes even Al) and Al could not elevate his play, he has never been able to do that in the post season anyway, but that is the reason you go more with your starters in the post season.

Our starters were out of synch due to injuries, which cost us in essence the series, and yes a shooter would have helped, let's not forget that our back-up SG was hurt as well.

PacerMan
07-09-2004, 02:24 PM
"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.




I respectfully think you need to watch all 6 games again. There was nothing soft about that series.

if I made a list of 10 possible reasons, the Pacers being soft would not make the list






Respectfully disagree. Our big men played at the offensive end like WUSSIES.
HOW many times did AL make a strong move into the lane only to puss out a dipsy do triple pump instead of rising up and putting it in the face of the Wallace boys? Jermaine was injured, so he has an excuse, but even he settled for jumpers instead of attacking this SHORT front line.
PLaying soft is #1 on my list.

waxman
07-09-2004, 03:34 PM
Blah blah...my favorite player isn't to blame.....

There is plenty to go around....Poor perimeter shooting, allowed Detroit to pack it in.... Injuries slowed Tinsley who could break down the defense and severly limited JO's all around game....Forcing Ron to take even more upon his shoulders and he was already pressing.... Ron did take poor shots on more than a few occasions...shooting 29% is more than just missing open shots... His poor shooting and shot selection started in the Miami series.

Jeffs effectiveness was somewhat neutralized by a player that is his mirror image....Ben is just a better player, shotblocker....and a tad darker.

Jeff is fine as our center....I think he can develop a consistant 15 footer. he's got decent mechanics just needs that confidence..... Harrison could be a suprise he had good numbers in college and played in a tough conference... I could see him being a Magloire type player.

This team is fine...I'm not all that excited about losing anyone....another shooter would be great....Stephen Jackson may fit the bill....or maybe Freddie can step up.


we'll shall see.

Unclebuck
07-09-2004, 03:44 PM
There are tons of reasons, I was not trying to say the backcourt was the only reason or even the most important reason, but my overall point was that the backcourt is to blame 100X more than the frontcourt.

It is nice to a thread about something other than trades

ChicagoJ
07-09-2004, 04:22 PM
"I" think we lost that series because of the front line being intimidated by the Pistons frontline. Jermaine was injured and AL played like a pussy all series. jeff was invisible and Bender never showed up either. If any of those guys went AT the Pistons players we could have gotten them in foul trouble and out of the game. Tinsley not being able to get into the lane hurt us a lot there, but mostly we just played SOFTTTTTTTT up front.

Good Lord man, did you see game 4? We absolutely demolished the Pistons because we had someone (Cro) who was knocking down the long shot and drawing Big Ben out of the paint so Al, Ron and Jermaine could pound away on the inside. If ever there was a case to be made that all this team really needs is a consistent outside threat, game 4 was it.



BP I know you weren't addressing your comments to me, but in case I was not clear, yes lack of outside shooting killed us, and the best place to get outside shooting is from the guards. Sure Cro helped in game #4, but that hurt other parts of the Pacers game. Fred helped in game #5.

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with your analysis, UB. Cro knocking down those shots in game 4 is not an indication that we need more size, it's an indication that we need a consistent long-range rifleman to draw defenders out of the paint so Ron and Jermaine can go to work on the inside where they're more effective.



Now that's and idea I really love.

:dance: :love: :pepper:

Here's my slightly different take on this analysis...

Cro made a difference because he was able to pull either Ben or Rasheed out of the paint. Adding a SG that can shoot from the perimeter doesn't necessarily stretch the Pistons' (is that gramatically correct ;)) defense as effectively. We need to create a genetic hybrid of AC's shooting and Jeff's tenacity. I agree that SG is a bigger priority, but that doesn't mean that we don't need any help up front. Harrison *could* be that help, anyway.

Ron's meltdown didn't cost us the series, it just cost us the clinching game of the series. Now his subpar shooting and forced shots throughout the series is a factor, along with our injuries and Detroit's domination in the backcourt.

I'd still probably rank them in that order. :devil: