PDA

View Full Version : Pacers Small Ball Is A Mistake (Article Hibbert Fans Will Love)



kbsothman
01-28-2010, 02:40 AM
http://www.indysportsnation.com/isn-012710-pacers-small-ball-story,0,3475953.story

What do you guys think, is it time to go big or stay small?

Bball
01-28-2010, 03:41 AM
"It's difficult to match up with their size when we go small," said Mike Dunelavy who finished the night with 18 points but only five rebounds.

"I don't know, it is the coach's decision, and we are just going to go out with the line-up he has us play."

That's a ringing endorsement....

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-28-2010, 08:43 AM
The question I have is, how in the world did Dunleavy end up with 18 points?

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 09:05 AM
Roy's plus/minus was even higher until he got put in at garbage time with three minutes left.

It's becoming clearer that PD isn't the only place that JOS is getting criticized (notice the description of "stubborn" by the guy in the video).

I expect we'll see some changes of some sort soon.

Speed
01-28-2010, 09:14 AM
The question I have is, how in the world did Dunleavy end up with 18 points?


Maybe it's like a 3 game total?

Dude's been struggling for sure.

BillS
01-28-2010, 09:38 AM
Hibbert got abused by Bynum as well, and once LA stopped letting anyone near the paint he stopped getting inside. Hibbert also failed in at least two cases to put the ball up strongly (can you say "dunk") and left weak layup attempts to roll out.

During the first half Murphy spent a lot of time getting into the lane or at least into short range rather than settling for 3-point shots.

I'm not supporting Murphy at C by any means, but the "pure good" vs. "pure evil" in this debate begins to get as depressing as the outcomes. To convince anyone we have to be looking at everything, not just the little pieces that fit our preconceived notions.

Peck
01-28-2010, 04:52 PM
Holy crap, man that sports reporter didn't pull many punches in showing his displeasure with O'Brien.

You just really have to wonder if this stuff isn't starting to filter into the front office as well?

Sookie
01-28-2010, 05:14 PM
Whatever Happens, hope we don't return to a Troy/Roy front court.

Granger/Murphy is better than Muprhy/Roy...obviously ideal being Roy/Granger, but don't hold your breath waiting for Muprhy to go to the bench.

Naptown_Seth
01-28-2010, 08:49 PM
Whatever Happens, hope we don't return to a Troy/Roy front court.

Granger/Murphy is better than Muprhy/Roy...obviously ideal being Roy/Granger, but we can all hold our breaths for Muprhy going to the bench.
Cleveland's bench you mean
:dance: please

It's a win-win for him and us.

Bball
01-28-2010, 08:53 PM
You just really have to wonder if this stuff isn't starting to filter into the front office as well?


Let's hope it is...

KnicksRGarbage
01-28-2010, 09:04 PM
Granger/Murphy is better than Muprhy/Roy...obviously ideal being Roy/Granger, but we can all hold our breaths for Muprhy going to the bench.

I'd rather not die in this manner. I'm pretty sure I can't hold me breath that long...

Anthem
01-28-2010, 11:35 PM
Holy crap, man that sports reporter didn't pull many punches in showing his displeasure with O'Brien.

You just really have to wonder if this stuff isn't starting to filter into the front office as well?
Let's hope it's distracted them from your video. :wink:

Psycho T
01-28-2010, 11:38 PM
Both Hibbert and Hansbrough could play with a small lineup ( Hansbrough would probably need Granger on the floor ).

Hibbert can because he can score in the post , contest shots and can score from midrange.

Hansbrough can because he runs the floor really really well for a big man , draws fouls and score from midrange.

Murphy really doesnt fit a small lineup because he is the same as the other 4 guys on the floor.

kester99
01-29-2010, 01:59 AM
I think the guy at IndySportsNation, Ken Sothman, writes well, but he offers no real numbers to back up anything he says...well, other than the Lakers score against us. He also comes to a wrong conclusion, as far as I'm concerned.

If you want the numbers, as to whether we play better small vs big, go here:

Really good analysis, by the numbers, of our small line-ups' performance vs our big line-ups' performance. By Tim Donahue, our count55, for 8 Pointst, 9 Seconds.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/01/the-numbers-behind-going-small/#comments

Peck
01-29-2010, 02:17 AM
I think the guy at IndySportsNation, Ken Sothman, writes well, but he offers no real numbers to back up anything he says...well, other than the Lakers score against us. He also comes to a wrong conclusion, as far as I'm concerned.

If you want the numbers, as to whether we play better small vs big, go here:

Really good analysis, by the numbers, of our small line-ups' performance vs our big line-ups' performance. By Tim Donahue, our count55, for 8 Pointst, 9 Seconds.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/01/the-numbers-behind-going-small/#comments

Really? What did you disagree with?

I mean calling Roy a soon to be superstar is really far fetched but other than that what did you not agree with?

kester99
01-29-2010, 04:06 AM
Really? What did you disagree with?

I mean calling Roy a soon to be superstar is really far fetched but other than that what did you not agree with?

He makes an assumption that small ball somehow does not involve Hibbert. He says, "So the question remains, why would a team choose to play small ball to attempt to salvage a season when Hibbert is there? "

Our small ball does involve Hibbert, so he's objecting to something that doesn't exist. Roy at C, and Danny at PF has been our most efficient combo.

He argues that with small ball we can't beat the Lakers or "championship caliber" teams. That is correct. And we can't beat them with a big line-up either. We do stand a better chance going small. Look at the stats in Count55's article.

Other than that, he doesn't say much. He only mentions two Pacers games, one of which we won....and somehow pulls Don Nelson and the Titanic in as....what? A logical argument?

Like I say...nice wordsmith, faulty analyst.

The only question for me is when JOB will go with Roy as a starter, rather than Troy, when going small. But both versions are better than our 'big' line-up with Troy and Roy together. I also don't know that JOB will completely abandon going big if a matchup calls for it, but I hope he waits for Hansbrough or Jeff to be the PF, with Roy at C.

kester99
01-29-2010, 04:16 AM
The question I have is, how in the world did Dunleavy end up with 18 points?

Yeah....maybe the writer changed his article. The quote is from Troy, not Mike. And Troy had those points.

Editing after the original upload, I guess. It quoted Troy the first time I read it, not Dunleavy.

----------------------------

Seriously, count55's article deserves a read. It actually deserves it's own thread, but I feel hamstrung by ignorance of protocol. Should I post it as a thread? Should I not, figuring Tim will if he wants to; or is there etiquette somehow involved with the article being a 8pts9sec article, and we want to encourage visitation there. I'm so confused.

Peck
01-29-2010, 04:17 AM
He makes an assumption that small ball somehow does not involve Hibbert. He says, "So the question remains, why would a team choose to play small ball to attempt to salvage a season when Hibbert is there? "

Our small ball does involve Hibbert, so he's objecting to something that doesn't exist. Roy at C, and Danny at PF has been our most efficient combo.

He argues that with small ball we can't beat the Lakers or "championship caliber" teams. That is correct. And we can't beat them with a big line-up either. We do stand a better chance going small. Look at the stats in Count55's article.

Other than that, he doesn't say much. He only mentions two Pacers games, one of which we won....and somehow pulls Don Nelson and the Titanic in as....what? A logical argument?

Like I say...nice wordsmith, faulty analyst.

The only question for me is when JOB will go with Roy as a starter, rather than Troy, when going small. But both versions are better than our 'big' line-up with Troy and Roy together. I also don't know that JOB will completely abandon going big if a matchup calls for it, but I hope he waits for Hansbrough or Jeff to be the PF, with Roy at C.


Aren't you really making the same kind of assumption though that he is? Aren't you assuming that a big lineup would mean Roy & Troy?

I guess in my mind I have just never considered Troy a big. So whenever I read or hear somebody say we are going small I assume he is in there anyway.

What I would really like to see is a long decent run with a traditional lineup with Danny at the 3 and Roy along side either Josh/Jeff/Solomon.

However there is no way on God's green earth that Jim would ever go for a lineup like that as none of the above (minus Danny) are a threat from outside (I don't just mean three point shots I mean none of them are going to step back consistantly from 18' and hit a shot) but I would really like to see what a lineup like that would do on the defensive end.

kester99
01-29-2010, 04:29 AM
Troy is 6'11". He's our big, in this equation. I remember now, your preference for a more traditional banger PF, but you are absolutely correct: You're not going to see it as one of the preferred options under JOB.

Yes, all my discussion of big vs small classifies Troy as a big when he's at PF.

The reason I emphasize the Roy Troy combo is that Solomon is definitely second-string, and Jeff and Hans can't play. Roy/Troy gets the most minutes as our version of 'big.'

Maybe I should say Small vs "EuroBig"?