PDA

View Full Version : Dumbfounded by this quote...



jmoney2584
01-09-2010, 06:01 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4809983

Noticed this last night, but forgot to post it. The article talks about how Grangers unexpected, early return will be beneficial to the team. I do not doubt this, however, JOB is tagged with an interesting (and in my opinion off base) quote. It goes:

"We didn't have another guy like him that could space the court and be a power forward," O'Brien said before the game. "Now you can use Brandon Rush and Mike Dunleavy and Danny, which by far has been our best lineup to date. That's what we missed more than the apparent things"

Wow. Simply WOW. Had the lineup of Dun, Dan, and Rush even played that many games together this season? I surely don't see that as the most succesful lineup possible. Maybe I am just to lazy to research it but my world revolves around this team on a blue and gold axis and this situation is absent from my memory. Plus, we haven't had much success to deem anything BEST. Someone tell me Jim's off his rocker here and I'm not just getting worked up over perceived ignorance.

Thank you come again.

Bball
01-09-2010, 06:07 PM
I long ago quit paying attention to what O'Brien says. His actions rarely support his words. Basically, no matter what he says he likes a quick offense, filled with jumpers, a super-majority of 3's, and doesn't care what that does to the team's defense or means better defenders or more balanced rotations must go unused to see his precious 'system' played out.

...And it's 'played out' alright...

PaceBalls
01-09-2010, 06:12 PM
I have no idea why Jim is doing what he does anymore. I can see no method to the madness. The guy is not a moron, right? I mean he is a smart fellow. Has he gone over the edge into basketball coaching insanity? Maybe, being so stubborn as the wheels fall off the wagon has to be considered a bit insane. Now we see him grasping at straws with make believe lineups that he has seldom used. What is the definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein so famously put it, but doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I would love to see him use Danny as PF, this implying Troy would not be on the court. But as we saw last night. Troy got the most minutes of any player. Go Figure.

new coach plz

Hicks
01-09-2010, 06:18 PM
Danny at 4 would be great if it didn't mean Troy at the 5.

Price/Watson
Head/Rush
Dunleavy (when 100%)/Jones (reverse this for now)
Granger/Hansbrough
Hibbert/McRoberts or Solomon

DEEman
01-09-2010, 06:32 PM
I long ago quit paying attention to what O'Brien says. His actions rarely support his words. Basically, no matter what he says he likes a quick offense, filled with jumpers, a super-majority of 3's, and doesn't care what that does to the team's defense or means better defenders or more balanced rotations must go unused to see his precious 'system' played out.

...And it's 'played out' alright...

Well said. I would like to add that if you do pay attention to his words, his actions, just pretend he is putting up a big fun show to hand us Wall. And by next season he will turn back as the smartest coach ever with a wonderfull team behind him on the floor that plays his brilliant offensive schemes.

Just try it. My girl loves me for it.

Hoop
01-09-2010, 06:40 PM
Since when is it the PF's job to space the floor anyway. It seems only in JOB's bizarre world of basketball. Give me a PF that "powers" please.

PaceBalls
01-09-2010, 06:40 PM
Well said. I would like to add that if you do pay attention to his words, his actions, just pretend he is putting up a big fun show to hand us Wall. And by next season he will turn back as the smartest coach ever with a wonderfull team behind him on the floor that plays his brilliant offensive schemes.

Just try it. My girl loves me for it.

It would imply giving up on the team this year, and I am too much of an optimist to do so. I really don't think they would tank. And I have seen enough of the team to realize they actually can play basketball at a decent level when used the right way. I'm not saying they would win 50 games, but they could at least win half of them and make it into the playoffs if the right players were used and the right offense was used.

Unclebuck
01-09-2010, 06:44 PM
O'brien is a stats guy, so if he says that lineup is our best lineup, I'm sure he has stats to back it up

vnzla81
01-09-2010, 06:46 PM
O'brien is a stats guy, so if he says that lineup is our best lineup, I'm sure he has stats to back it up

that is another reason to never pay attention to stats.

Tom White
01-09-2010, 06:51 PM
Someone has to ask this, so it may as well be me.

How many games this year have Dun and Granger been healthy at the same time? Can't be many, can it?

Maybe he is speaking of last year.

Hoop
01-09-2010, 06:55 PM
O'brien is a stats guy, so if he says that lineup is our best lineup, I'm sure he has stats to back it up

:50cent:

RamBo_Lamar
01-09-2010, 07:02 PM
O'brien is a stats guy, so if he says that lineup is our best lineup, I'm sure he has stats to back it up

I was thinking the same thing just last evening after listening to his talk-in
show. He is without a doubt the greatest statistician and possibly even
mathematician the Pacers have ever had. This is a good thing, but I was
thinking it might compromise his "seat of the pants" coaching factor.

Was also thinking that maybe the best players to find to play under his
coaching would be ones with advanced mathematic degrees.

I LOVE the way he can break down the numbers, but at this point,
gut reaction might be the better course.

Unclebuck
01-09-2010, 07:08 PM
Since when is it the PF's job to space the floor anyway. It seems only in JOB's bizarre world of basketball. Give me a PF that "powers" please.

A number of coaches really like having a "stretch forward" The Cavs were looking for one this past summer. George Karl has often talkd about how important it is to have a power forward who can stretch the floor. I have heard other coaches current and former talk about how important it is, with the zone rules now, shooters at all 5 positions on the floor is at a premium. In fact most NBA teams have a player that they can put on the floor and they are a threat from either three point range or at least from 20 ft

vnzla81
01-09-2010, 07:13 PM
A number of coaches really like having a "stretch forward"

of course is important to have a PF who can stretch the floor the issue here is that they never feed Roy in the post when they do that, instead they shoot it everytime.

the jaddler
01-09-2010, 07:17 PM
Danny at 4 would be great if it didn't mean Troy at the 5.

Price/Watson
Head/Rush
Dunleavy (when 100%)/Jones (reverse this for now)
Granger/Hansbrough
Hibbert/McRoberts or Solomon

why not play danny and hansbrough at the same time?

BlueNGold
01-09-2010, 07:21 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4809983

Noticed this last night, but forgot to post it. The article talks about how Grangers unexpected, early return will be beneficial to the team. I do not doubt this, however, JOB is tagged with an interesting (and in my opinion off base) quote. It goes:

"We didn't have another guy like him that could space the court and be a power forward," O'Brien said before the game. "Now you can use Brandon Rush and Mike Dunleavy and Danny, which by far has been our best lineup to date. That's what we missed more than the apparent things"

Wow. Simply WOW. Had the lineup of Dun, Dan, and Rush even played that many games together this season? I surely don't see that as the most succesful lineup possible. Maybe I am just to lazy to research it but my world revolves around this team on a blue and gold axis and this situation is absent from my memory. Plus, we haven't had much success to deem anything BEST. Someone tell me Jim's off his rocker here and I'm not just getting worked up over perceived ignorance.

Thank you come again.


Dumbfounded is reading this quote and while watching Troy Murphy log hours on the court. I've been done trying to understand it.

The only thing clear is that JOb wants a PF who stretches the floor. That I get.

Hicks
01-09-2010, 07:26 PM
why not play danny and hansbrough at the same time?

Sure you could do that. I'm not trying to advocate a 5 for 5 substitution pattern.

rm14
01-09-2010, 07:26 PM
Hello all, first time poster here on PD. I have been a reader for a long time but have never posted (don't know why). I agree with what everyone is saying, I don't understand JOB's reasoning on this. These 3 guys really haven't gotten any PT together this year, he has to be going off of last year. It is also disheartening to me that McBob is being sent to the bench so quickly, he was doing good things in his brief stint playing thus far. I'm just hoping Murphy goes right back in to showcase him some more.

Trophy
01-09-2010, 07:29 PM
With Danny back, looks like someone is gonna be the odd man out (at SG).

vnzla81
01-09-2010, 07:32 PM
Dumbfounded is reading this quote and while watching Troy Murphy log hours on the court. I've been done trying to understand it.

The only thing clear is that JOb wants a PF who stretches the floor. That I get.

my question is been always of why he wants to stretch the floor is he is never going to feed the player in the post? can anybody explain this to me?

Hoop
01-09-2010, 07:35 PM
A number of coaches really like having a "stretch forward" The Cavs were looking for one this past summer. George Karl has often talkd about how important it is to have a power forward who can stretch the floor. I have heard other coaches current and former talk about how important it is, with the zone rules now, shooters at all 5 positions on the floor is at a premium. In fact most NBA teams have a player that they can put on the floor and they are a threat from either three point range or at least from 20 ft

It's important to have "players" that spread the floor, you don't have to have a PF to do it.

In JOB's bizarre world of basketball, spreading the floor has for the most part been a waste of time. Why are we spreading the floor, so we can take more long range bad shots?

We don't get the ball inside when our "floor spreading PF" is in the game. We rarely drive or drive and kick when our "floor spreading PF" is in the game.

We've played better most of this season with a more traditional PF in the game (McBob or Hans) or with Danny at the PF. Danny at the PF has worked because he's not a turnstile on defense, not because he spreads the floor on offense.

Ozwalt72
01-09-2010, 07:50 PM
Interesting 82games.com's 5 man stats doesn't show Rush, Granger, and Dunleavy playing together. I know Obrien doesn't use that site's stats but still, how much of a data sample does he have?

Another interesting thought. Last year it was a common belief that Dunleavy and Granger on the court at the same time is a no-no. This year its more Murphy/Hibbert. Say we have a lineup of PG/Dun/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert....wouldn't that be extra swell!

the jaddler
01-09-2010, 07:53 PM
Sure you could do that. I'm not trying to advocate a 5 for 5 substitution pattern.

ok now i understand what you are going for...deffently makes sense.....now if you could just email that to JOB....

PaceBalls
01-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Interesting 82games.com's 5 man stats doesn't show Rush, Granger, and Dunleavy playing together. I know Obrien doesn't use that site's stats but still, how much of a data sample does he have?

Another interesting thought. Last year it was a common belief that Dunleavy and Granger on the court at the same time is a no-no. This year its more Murphy/Hibbert. Say we have a lineup of PG/Dun/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert....wouldn't that be extra swell!

Yes, that lineup is as bad as it gets. I think alot of folks still think Dun/Granger together is not a good combination, maybe if Granger was at the 4 and Dun was at the 3... as Jim was pretending about, but it isn't near as bad as the Murphy/Hibbert combination which completely outshines that lineup in futility. Murphy/Hibbert/Dun has to be one of the worst defensive trios in Pacers history, if not the absolute worst.

Brad8888
01-09-2010, 08:56 PM
I was thinking the same thing just last evening after listening to his talk-in
show. He is without a doubt the greatest statistician and possibly even
mathematician the Pacers have ever had. This is a good thing, but I was
thinking it might compromise his "seat of the pants" coaching factor.

Was also thinking that maybe the best players to find to play under his
coaching would be ones with advanced mathematic degrees.

I LOVE the way he can break down the numbers, but at this point,
gut reaction might be the better course.

I wish he had the capacity to coach with gut reactions, but I don't really think he does, or possibly he just doesn't want to.

He is also a chess player believe it or not, and has had coverage of that fact on the United States Chess Federation website http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7853/141/


Many fans believe that college basketball is a “coaches’ game” and that pro basketball is a “players’ game” but O’Brien says that this is simply a myth. “Every game of basketball is a players’ game ultimately and the coach’s job is just to put them in position to be able to do their best. I think that the difference between college basketball and professional basketball is the difference between checkers and chess. The professional game, because it is played with the top athletes in the world, has nuances that are such that there is actually more strategy involved (than in college); the typical fan does not understand the depth of what is going on, much like somebody who would come in to a masters’ tournament in chess would not be able to explain what he is seeing. I loved college basketball and I still love college basketball but it’s different than what goes on in the NBA—like chess and checkers, college basketball and pro basketball are played on the same board or the same court but they are different.”

He doesn't think he should have to make in game adjustments as long as he puts his players in a position to do their best. He may well be a good practice coach, but his game contingency planning is suspect at best, and using gut reactions to make adjustments during games, to him, would just be an admission of pregame failure on his part.

Also, he explains his philosophy of "controlling the middle"


“In both basketball and chess the middle must be controlled. In our sport, it’s the three second paint—defensively we want to control that by keeping the ball out of the middle and offensively we want to control it by making sure that we get the ball into the middle. I have never won a chess game—or have not won very many times--when I didn’t control the middle of the board.”

This explains the dribble penetration failures, and overall offensive failure as well. He wants to control the game by getting the ball into the paint. He also has little to no faith in Roy or anybody else to receive a pass in the paint in either a position to score quickly or pass to the open shooter at the arc, leaving the best option being the dribble penetration as his weapon of choice. Everyone knows this is coming, and adjusted for this approximately 2 years ago for this coaching stint. We therefore take threes both because O'B is trying to open up the middle to make it vulnerable to dribble penetration, and the fact that most teams feel that they can beat us by letting us shoot threes and using whatever misses we end up with to punish us offensively on fast breaks, or just from having more opportunities to score from higher percentage shots because of playing with more discipline and waiting for the right shot to present itself in the flow of an offensive attack.

Defensively, he also wants to keep the ball from reaching the paint, which is all well and good, but he assumes that the opponents are going to dribble penetrate as their primary option as well. The better coached teams rely on ball movement, not just 3's, to dislodge the defense, and then penetrate either with cuts or passes to their post players. This defeats his (or Harter's if the long lost poster O'/Bird is actually correct) strategy of setting up a "perimeter" because it is nearly always set up too far away from the basket to allow for proper help and rotation to seal all of the gaps it naturally has, (most notably around the slower Troy and Roy, leaving Roy in foul trouble) due to not being geared to defend against a passing game. As most know, it is not possible to run the floor and dribble with the ball and have the ball move as quickly or effectively as it does when passed from one player to the next.

Sorry about my latest O'B rant.

dgranger17
01-09-2010, 09:21 PM
according to the +/- on nba.com our best lineup is:

E. Watson D. Jones D. Granger B. Rush R. Hibbert

If Murphy had the option of kissing three guys at once or getting an offensive rebound, i bet he'd choose making out with seven dudes

PaceBalls
01-10-2010, 07:41 AM
He is also a chess player believe it or not, and has had coverage of that fact on the United States Chess Federation website http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7853/141/


Apparently Jim would lose to the 4 move check mate 9 times in a row before adjusting his opening strategy.

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qxf7 game over....

owl
01-10-2010, 08:25 AM
A number of coaches really like having a "stretch forward" The Cavs were looking for one this past summer. George Karl has often talkd about how important it is to have a power forward who can stretch the floor. I have heard other coaches current and former talk about how important it is, with the zone rules now, shooters at all 5 positions on the floor is at a premium. In fact most NBA teams have a player that they can put on the floor and they are a threat from either three point range or at least from 20 ft

There is no question Murphy is a stretch forward, he just has no power to his game, especially on defense. Pretty much defeats his purpose as a "power" forward.
I like Murphy for who he is but he is bad for this team.

IndyPacer
01-10-2010, 11:01 AM
Interesting 82games.com's 5 man stats doesn't show Rush, Granger, and Dunleavy playing together. I know Obrien doesn't use that site's stats but still, how much of a data sample does he have?

Another interesting thought. Last year it was a common belief that Dunleavy and Granger on the court at the same time is a no-no. This year its more Murphy/Hibbert. Say we have a lineup of PG/Dun/Granger/Murphy/Hibbert....wouldn't that be extra swell!

Maybe we'll get Wall with that lineup. I personally don't want to watch a lineup that features Dun and Murphy simultaneously. Not anticipating much defense there.

Mourning
01-10-2010, 12:46 PM
It would imply giving up on the team this year, and I am too much of an optimist to do so. I really don't think they would tank. And I have seen enough of the team to realize they actually can play basketball at a decent level when used the right way. I'm not saying they would win 50 games, but they could at least win half of them and make it into the playoffs if the right players were used and the right offense was used.

OMFG! Not another "let's try to make the play-offs and fail to do so by one or two games and then screw up your drafting position even further by winning a meaningless last-of-the-season game"-year AGAIN! Please, NO!

Look. I'm not trying to provoke you, but I seriously have had enough with that crap the past few years to keep on this road to literally nowhere again.

McKeyFan
01-10-2010, 03:30 PM
OMFG! Not another "let's try to make the play-offs and fail to do so by one or two games and then screw up your drafting position even further by winning a meaningless last-of-the-season game"-year AGAIN! Please, NO!

Look. I'm not trying to provoke you, but I seriously have had enough with that crap the past few years to keep on this road to literally nowhere again.

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. You always try to win as many games as possible.

I would be quite happy if this team tried to win the right way and tanked. I would also be very pleased to watch our younger defensive-minded players play the right way and suddenly start winning.

I think the Indiana fans deserve this, and I think they are more interested in seeing the team play the right way than looking at the record. I think the current situation is an insult to the dignity of Indiana's basketball heritage.

Last year wasn't as insulting. They played hard and believed they just might make the playoffs. This team does not believe in the system.

NuffSaid
01-10-2010, 07:58 PM
Since when is it the PF's job to space the floor anyway. It seems only in JOB's bizarre world of basketball. Give me a PF that "powers" please.
Job's quote is plain BS.

First off, I seriously doubt Granger (SF), Dunleavy (SF) and BRush (SG) have ever played significant minutes to truly evaluate how effective the trio could be.

Second, although Granger did play PF in college and a little bit for the Pacers out of necessity, I really don't see how effective having him at the 4 has been long-term for this team. You'd have to play him there for atleast half a season and then show me the stats to convince me that Granger can be effective there.

Third, you'd have to have a very strong and experienced Center playing alongside Granger in order to have any chance of Granger being successful at the 4; Murphy clearly isn't the right option there even if the idea were to pull the Center out of the paint using Murphy's ability to knock down the 3-pt shot. I just don't think most Centers would leave the paint unguarded just to block/contest a perimeter shot. I think most would be willing to take that risk and double-down on Granger and force him to beat you down low. Therefore, the only way playing Granger at the 4 and Murphy at the 5 works is: 1) if Murphy is knocking down his 3's, and; 2) if Danny can power through double-teams. Otherwise, you've contained both and just placed your All-Star at significant risk. Not worth it, IMO.

Get me a hard-nosed Center/PF and only use Granger at the 4 if you absolutely must, but only if you can get a dominate Center alongside him. Otherwise, you just put Granger in a very compromising position.

flox
01-10-2010, 08:08 PM
Since when is it the PF's job to space the floor anyway. It seems only in JOB's bizarre world of basketball. Give me a PF that "powers" please.

A traditional power forward that powers hasn't been useful since 2002.

All prototypical fours now need at least a midrange game.

cordobes
01-11-2010, 02:20 AM
A traditional power forward that powers hasn't been useful since 2002.

All prototypical fours now need at least a midrange game.

And those who can't shoot the triple will be increasingly rare.

Hicks
01-11-2010, 12:49 PM
I recognize that's the direction the league has gone, but why not abuse these "extra tall Small Forwards" with a bruiser? It seems like I rarely see a team abuse small ball by simply posting these folks up early and often.