PDA

View Full Version : Whats been the Pacers biggest contributor to a losing season so far?



jhondog28
02-03-2010, 02:32 PM
What is the biggest factor been so far that can be contributed to the Pacers losing record?

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 02:36 PM
no consistency, one day the play small ball, next day the play big and then they go back to small ball, benching players one day, playing them next day, feeding Hibbert one day, not feeding him next day, playing defense one day, not playing defense the next game, many, many things are going on with this team.

jhondog28
02-03-2010, 02:45 PM
So V let me ask you a question. If we had any other coach how many more wins would you expect? Lets say Rick Carlisle for comparison's sake.

Infinite MAN_force
02-03-2010, 03:05 PM
I don't know if you can chalk it up to just one issue.

Our interior defense is atrocious, especially when we play Hibbert and Murphy together. Having a real defensive intimidator to pair with Hibbert would pay dividends I think, and I don't think Tyler is that player. Mcroberts would at least be a nice shot blocking presence and a factor on the boards, but he never gets to play. Not that he is the answer either necessarily, just the best option available.

Then there is PG play, AJ has shown promise but is still a rookie, Earl Watson is a journeyman backup. Solid backup, but you are in trouble if he is the starter. Talent at the PG position is severley lacking.

Coaching is also a problem. This offense made a lot more sense when dunleavy and murphy were all we had. This is the season where we should have started shifting the focus toward the younger talents. Hibbert has proven himself to just about everyone it seems EXCEPT our coach, who still lacks faith in him. We should be running more of an inside out game now, but Obrien refuses to change course.

Instead we run and jack threes, and play small lineups with the intent of punishing the other team on the offensive end, except it never happens. We just get punished on the defensive end.

There are also intangibles. This team lacks the spirit and fight it had last season, I personally think they are fed up with the coach, and they also lack on court leadership (Jarret Jack?)

I'm sure a lot of people will just say "Lack of Talent" and pat themselves on the back, but I think thats a bit of a cop out, and there is a lot more to it that that if you break it down and really look at it.

Unclebuck
02-03-2010, 03:09 PM
So V let me ask you a question. If we had any other coach how many more wins would you expect? Lets say Rick Carlisle for comparison's sake.

I was actually thinking about this earlier today. It is a good question. if you could have any coach what could this team win this year. I think larry Brown could maybe get 36 wins.

On the poll question I wrote in player chemistry (Wells) because Mike wells has been talking about it all season long

Overall, I've been saying since about game 3 of this season that something is not right. The record isn't that bad but the number of times they have been blownout is way too high. That suggests to me either it is a chemistry issue amongst the players or a chemistry issue between the coach and the players. Or a combo of both

Still though the talent of this team stinks - worse than the past two years. Two years ago we had Mike, last year we had Marquis, jack and Jeff. This year Mike is about 50% Jeff has been out, Ford is benched (he is talented) Tyler is out. Danny has been hurt

jhondog28
02-03-2010, 03:33 PM
I agree that there are a number of issues at play here, thats why when I wrote the question I was curious to find out what fans thought was the biggest factor. In otherwards the thing that sticks out more than anything else.

nerveghost
02-03-2010, 03:37 PM
I think injuries in general should be an option. I think if Dun, Granger, Foster, Hansbrough and Murphy are all healthy from the beginning of the season until now, we are still in the hunt for the playoffs.

That said, I think I might prefer getting a top 5 draft pick just to speed up the rebuilding process.

Right now we are a team scrambling with just 2 legitimate front line players (Hibbert and Murphy)

McBob isn't good enough, Solo is a 10th man at best.

ksuttonjr76
02-03-2010, 03:52 PM
Mostly the coach, but I won't ignore the injuries either. With a different coach, I believe the team is capable of 40+ win season.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 04:16 PM
I'm sure a lot of people will just say "Lack of Talent" and pat themselves on the back, but I think thats a bit of a cop out, and there is a lot more to it that that if you break it down and really look at it.

This is 100% true, so I'm not arguing...

But we're talking about an NBA team (or allegedly an NBA-caliber team).

Talent is a requirement for a competitive team.

Chemistry and effort and coaching can set the champion apart from the contenders, but without talent its a non-starter.

I don't care if this team played harder and had better chemistry, the record wouldn't be much better.

Larry Brown or Carlisle or Karl might have squeezed a couple more wins out of this roster, but not many. And Brownie or Carlisle might also be squeezing so hard that the players would be on verge of tuning them out.

You don't waste a roster this bad with a "turnaround" style of coach. The burnout will come before the roster is ready for the next level.

The team lost its second-most-important player from last year (not necessarily the second-best player) and did not replace him. Oh sure, they signed three guys for the price of one shortly after he left. But they didn't replace him.

Infinite MAN_force
02-03-2010, 04:50 PM
This is 100% true, so I'm not arguing...

But we're talking about an NBA team (or allegedly an NBA-caliber team).

Talent is a requirement for a competitive team.

Chemistry and effort and coaching can set the champion apart from the contenders, but without talent its a non-starter.

I don't care if this team played harder and had better chemistry, the record wouldn't be much better.

Larry Brown or Carlisle or Karl might have squeezed a couple more wins out of this roster, but not many. And Brownie or Carlisle might also be squeezing so hard that the players would be on verge of tuning them out.

You don't waste a roster this bad with a "turnaround" style of coach. The burnout will come before the roster is ready for the next level.

The team lost its second-most-important player from last year (not necessarily the second-best player) and did not replace him. Oh sure, they signed three guys for the price of one shortly after he left. But they didn't replace him.

Some of this is based on "projecting" the youth, but I think we have the makings of a .500 or slightly better team talentwise, given another year of development for Hibbert/Rush/Price/Hansbrough, and a healthy Granger, decent bench, and of course a better coach.

In other words, I think we have the makings of a team that could get there. The talent upgrade will be required to actually do something once you get there. I see a lot of early playoff exits in that teams future, not unlike the 90s team in the early days.

However, you must crawl before you can walk. As much as some people want to see this team go from crap to playoff contender overnight, even "first round sweep" level improvement would be encouraging at this point. Doing it with Murphy/Dunleavy leading the way is spinning your wheels, doing it behind Granger/Rush/Hibbert is progress.

The silver lineing is that hopefully with this season in the toilet, the draft might give us a shot at that talent upgrade. If not? The three year plan is sound, see what free agency and trades can bring you once you have aquired some flexibility.

Unclebuck
02-03-2010, 04:58 PM
This is 100% true, so I'm not arguing...

But we're talking about an NBA team (or allegedly an NBA-caliber team).

Talent is a requirement for a competitive team.

Chemistry and effort and coaching can set the champion apart from the contenders, but without talent its a non-starter.

I don't care if this team played harder and had better chemistry, the record wouldn't be much better.

Larry Brown or Carlisle or Karl might have squeezed a couple more wins out of this roster, but not many. And Brownie or Carlisle might also be squeezing so hard that the players would be on verge of tuning them out.

You don't waste a roster this bad with a "turnaround" style of coach. The burnout will come before the roster is ready for the next level.

The team lost its second-most-important player from last year (not necessarily the second-best player) and did not replace him. Oh sure, they signed three guys for the price of one shortly after he left. But they didn't replace him.



That is probably your best post ever

ksuttonjr76
02-03-2010, 05:00 PM
This is 100% true, so I'm not arguing...

But we're talking about an NBA team (or allegedly an NBA-caliber team).

Talent is a requirement for a competitive team.

Chemistry and effort and coaching can set the champion apart from the contenders, but without talent its a non-starter.

I don't care if this team played harder and had better chemistry, the record wouldn't be much better.

Larry Brown or Carlisle or Karl might have squeezed a couple more wins out of this roster, but not many. And Brownie or Carlisle might also be squeezing so hard that the players would be on verge of tuning them out.

You don't waste a roster this bad with a "turnaround" style of coach. The burnout will come before the roster is ready for the next level.

The team lost its second-most-important player from last year (not necessarily the second-best player) and did not replace him. Oh sure, they signed three guys for the price of one shortly after he left. But they didn't replace him.

Jarret Jack was overrated. Personally, I like D. Jones' intensity and aggressive style better. Once Indiana gets a better coach, I can see D. Jones playing the "enforcer" role from the wing spot. Someone mentioned putting Lebron on his butt when he was clowning us during the Pacers/Cavs. If I had to choose someone to do it who I KNOW would do it, Jones would be my man.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 05:21 PM
Some of this is based on "projecting" the youth, but I think we have the makings of a .500 or slightly better team talentwise, given another year of development for Hibbert/Rush/Price/Hansbrough, and a healthy Granger, decent bench, and of course a better coach.

In other words, I think we have the makings of a team that could get there. The talent upgrade will be required to actually do something once you get there. I see a lot of early playoff exits in that teams future, not unlike the 90s team in the early days.

However, you must crawl before you can walk. As much as some people want to see this team go from crap to playoff contender overnight, even "first round sweep" level improvement would be encouraging at this point. Doing it with Murphy/Dunleavy leading the way is spinning your wheels, doing it behind Granger/Rush/Hibbert is progress.

The silver lineing is that hopefully with this season in the toilet, the draft might give us a shot at that talent upgrade. If not? The three year plan is sound, see what free agency and trades can bring you once you have aquired some flexibility.

I agree that our young core can grow up and become more talented. In the future. Right now, they aren't very good and one reason is a lack of experience (and perhaps they aren't really ready for that experience just quite yet.)

I'm not saying the entire roster needs to be scrapped.

If TBD/ Rush/ Granger/ Tyler/ Roy with Price/ TBC/ McBob turns out to be a competitive rotation in a couple of years it will be because all of these players grew into thier potential. And that's our best chance to be a contender again soon.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 05:26 PM
Jarret Jack was overrated.

So was 36-46. But its a helluva lot better than this years' version.


Personally, I like D. Jones' intensity and aggressive style better. Once Indiana gets a better coach, I can see D. Jones playing the "enforcer" role from the wing spot. Someone mentioned putting Lebron on his butt when he was clowning us during the Pacers/Cavs. If I had to choose someone to do it who I KNOW would do it, Jones would be my man.

Maybe Dahntay should play hockey. And maybe you should watch hockey. In basketball, that's a foul, and probably a flagrant foul. Very occasionally, it is a good strategy to "take" that foul.

I wouldn't make a roster choice around "who best to commit a cheap shot or flagrant foul?"

You don't eliminate Lebron's clowning with an "enforcer," you eliminate it by making the game competitive.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 05:27 PM
That is probably your best post ever

Oh come on. Better than "This team was built for the regular season"? Just because you were (were? ugh, you still are!) in denial...

:buddies:

McKeyFan
02-03-2010, 05:29 PM
This is 100% true, so I'm not arguing...

But we're talking about an NBA team (or allegedly an NBA-caliber team).

Talent is a requirement for a competitive team.

Chemistry and effort and coaching can set the champion apart from the contenders, but without talent its a non-starter.

I don't care if this team played harder and had better chemistry, the record wouldn't be much better.

Larry Brown or Carlisle or Karl might have squeezed a couple more wins out of this roster, but not many. And Brownie or Carlisle might also be squeezing so hard that the players would be on verge of tuning them out.

You don't waste a roster this bad with a "turnaround" style of coach. The burnout will come before the roster is ready for the next level.

The team lost its second-most-important player from last year (not necessarily the second-best player) and did not replace him. Oh sure, they signed three guys for the price of one shortly after he left. But they didn't replace him.

I will never be convinced this couldn't have been a .500 team this year, because the fgws group never got a chance to prove it.

If Murph gets traded at the deadline and we go on a run, I will be fully convinced JOB prevented us from reaching the playoffs this year.

jhondog28
02-03-2010, 05:34 PM
I was actually thinking about this earlier today. It is a good question. if you could have any coach what could this team win this year. I think larry Brown could maybe get 36 wins.

On the poll question I wrote in player chemistry (Wells) because Mike wells has been talking about it all season long

Overall, I've been saying since about game 3 of this season that something is not right. The record isn't that bad but the number of times they have been blownout is way too high. That suggests to me either it is a chemistry issue amongst the players or a chemistry issue between the coach and the players. Or a combo of both

Still though the talent of this team stinks - worse than the past two years. Two years ago we had Mike, last year we had Marquis, jack and Jeff. This year Mike is about 50% Jeff has been out, Ford is benched (he is talented) Tyler is out. Danny has been hurt

Let me take this a step further. If JOB was coaching the Lakers or Cavs would it prevent them from going deep in the playoffs? The reason I voted the interior defense is I really think that if you had Phil Jackson brught in to coach this team unless he fixes the interior defense there is no way we win a lot more than we are right now.

McKeyFan
02-03-2010, 05:48 PM
You fix the interior defense by benching Murph.

Solo, McBob, Hans, and sometimes Hibbert are all decent defenders.

jhondog28
02-03-2010, 05:51 PM
You fix the interior defense by benching Murph.

Solo, McBob, Hans, and sometimes Hibbert are all decent defenders.

Ok then where does your offense come from?

ksuttonjr76
02-03-2010, 06:00 PM
So was 36-46. But its a helluva lot better than this years' version.



Maybe Dahntay should play hockey. And maybe you should watch hockey. In basketball, that's a foul, and probably a flagrant foul. Very occasionally, it is a good strategy to "take" that foul.

I wouldn't make a roster choice around "who best to commit a cheap shot or flagrant foul?"

You don't eliminate Lebron's clowning with an "enforcer," you eliminate it by making the game competitive.

Slow your roll. I meant a player who's not scared to get physical with the other player. A player who's ready to go war for the team. A Charles Oakley, Dale Davis, Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, KG, Zo....a player with a mean streak. An individual who will step up when the team is against the ropes and will come back out swinging. Maybe you should starting watching ballet, because right now we have way too many players who dances out of the way of physical contact.

ksuttonjr76
02-03-2010, 06:06 PM
Let me take this a step further. If JOB was coaching the Lakers or Cavs would it prevent them from going deep in the playoffs? The reason I voted the interior defense is I really think that if you had Phil Jackson brught in to coach this team unless he fixes the interior defense there is no way we win a lot more than we are right now.

We would win more games, because Phil wouldn't have them jack up so many 3's and give up so many 2nd chance opportunties. We have players who can play interior D (S. Jones, Hibbert, Granger/D. Jones/Rush from the SG/SF, and possibly Hansbrough due to his energy). We just have the wrong coach to teach it.

ksuttonjr76
02-03-2010, 06:07 PM
Ok then where does your offense come from?

Uh...Hibbert and Hans perhaps?

Justin Tyme
02-03-2010, 06:29 PM
The team lost its second-most-important player from last year (not necessarily the second-best player) and did not replace him. Oh sure, they signed three guys for the price of one shortly after he left. But they didn't replace him.



I've said it b4 that Bird and the FO didn't understand the value Jack had on this team. They just plain dropped the ball. Apparently, Bird didn't feel Jack was worth the money and loyalty was.

Wage
02-03-2010, 06:43 PM
I know I am in the minority on this, but it is my opinion that if Jack is your second most important player, being a terrible team is pretty much your ceiling.

judicata
02-03-2010, 06:44 PM
I can't see how anyone who has watched some of this year's losing efforts think that they are anywhere close to their ceiling.

Personally, I have no idea where their ceiling is, since most games they just shoot 35 3s and get destroyed by 20.

This team was not built to be great, but they can be much better.

Injuries were pretty ugly as well, and the lack of a leader or any fire from the team's core players was backbreaking.

Sparhawk
02-03-2010, 06:45 PM
...feeding Hibbert one day, not feeding him next day....

Well he is hungry hungry Hibbert. Gotta feed him consistently!

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 06:49 PM
So V let me ask you a question. If we had any other coach how many more wins would you expect? Lets say Rick Carlisle for comparison's sake.

For your info I never like Rick, I tought he was a good coach but at the same time he was always calling plays and overused JO just the same way JOB use Troy and I can't stand that, but even that I think that maybe with him the pacers could be closer to .500 because he was a good defensive coach, he believes in defense and in a controlled offense, he is the kind of coach that would feed Roy until he is out of the game with foul trouble, with Rick Roy could be having a career year because like I said before he likes to play inside out and would have a more organize offense.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 07:00 PM
I know I am in the minority on this, but it is my opinion that if Jack is your second most important player, being a terrible team is pretty much your ceiling.

Not gonna dispute that. But we were 36-46 with him, and barring an unexpected turnaround worse than that without him.

I do think they overachieved to get to 36-46 last year.

Ideally Jack is in the rotation as "third guard". But until we have better guards, his departure seems to have made a big difference.

There are too many other similarities between this year's model and the 36-46 roster of last season. You've really got two choices,

(a) Perhaps all of those that are ready to have O'Brien fired should give him credit for getting a similarily messed-up and banged up (Granger) team to 36 wins last season.

(b) You've got to acknowledge that the downgrade from Jack to Jones/ Watson/ Jones was pretty substantial.

Just about everything else is the same -- except the results.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 07:14 PM
Slow your roll. I meant a player who's not scared to get physical with the other player. A player who's ready to go war for the team. A Charles Oakley, Dale Davis, Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, KG, Zo....a player with a mean streak. An individual who will step up when the team is against the ropes and will come back out swinging. Maybe you should starting watching ballet, because right now we have way too many players who dances out of the way of physical contact.

I'll agree the team needs players with mental toughness that is lacking. We can disagree of whether or not the guys with mental toughness have to be on-court punks.

Dale Davis and Oakley are fine examples. When their teams needed a stop and a rebound, they did a helluva job securing the rebound instead of flexing thier muscle and pretending to be an enforcer. Contrast that to fake tough-guys like Ben and Ron who would forget about the game/ scoreboard and turn it into an unnecessary physical confrontation. (Now, they might flex thier muscles after they made the rebound, but the emphasis was on making a basketball play and not just being an enforcer.

Were Dale and Oak "dirty" on a few rare, and famous occasions? Oh yeah. I would not really want to fight through a pick set by either of them. And as I said above, very occasionally that is a good strategy.

I read your original comment to mean that you'd rather have a player lose his focus/ concentration to be an enforcer. We've had plenty of those around here for the last decade and they're more trouble than they are worth. I'd rather the players be mentally tough, focused on the game of basketball, and turn their frustration into a win on the scoreboard.

But that's just me. You just hit a hot button for me - the difference between mental toughness and so-called "enforcer" toughness.

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 07:17 PM
Not gonna dispute that. But we were 36-46 with him, and barring an unexpected turnaround worse than that without him.

I do think they overachieved to get to 36-46 last year.

Ideally Jack is in the rotation as "third guard". But until we have better guards, his departure seems to have made a big difference.

There are too many other similarities between this year's model and the 36-46 roster of last season. You've really got two choices,

(a) Perhaps all of those that are ready to have O'Brien fired should give him credit for getting a similarily messed-up and banged up (Granger) team to 36 wins last season.

(b) You've got to acknowledge that the downgrade from Jack to Jones/ Watson/ Jones was pretty substantial.

Just about everything else is the same -- except the results.

I don't think that Jack was that big of a difference, I actually think that he is overrated, if he is that good the Raptors should be killing everybody and as we witness yesterday they could not even beat this crapy team, I think that the DJ signing even out the JJ lost.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 07:21 PM
I don't think that Jack was that big of a difference, I actually think that he is overrated, if he is that good the Raptors should be killing everybody and as we witness yesterday they could not even beat this crapy team, I think that the DJ signing even out the JJ lost.

So then you're saying Jim O'Brien is a truly outstanding coach for getting this crappy team to 36 wins last season and getting a career year out of the dog named Troy Murphy?

Sookie
02-03-2010, 07:40 PM
So then you're saying Jim O'Brien is a truly outstanding coach for getting this crappy team to 36 wins last season and getting a career year out of the dog named Troy Murphy?

You don't think Danny Granger having a fantastic season vs Danny Granger being injured and playing hurt has anything to do with the record difference *which at this point, I think it actually isn't that great of a difference* ?

bellisimo
02-03-2010, 07:48 PM
John Wall

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 07:48 PM
So then you're saying Jim O'Brien is a truly outstanding coach for getting this crappy team to 36 wins last season and getting a career year out of the dog named Troy Murphy?

I think it was a combination of players motivated and following the plan, this year is different because it seem like they are tired of this crappy system and coach and don't put as much effort, in fact the only time I see them playing the way they played last year was yesterday when JOB was not in the bench.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 07:56 PM
You don't think Danny Granger having a fantastic season vs Danny Granger being injured and playing hurt has anything to do with the record difference *which at this point, I think it actually isn't that great of a difference* ?

Danny missed 15 games with four different injuries (illnesses) last season. We went 9-6 without him.

He's missed 17 this season. If he stays healthy the rest of the way, this is a push. We've gone 6-11 without him. That is not a push.

Has his play declined from last season? Yes.

But I'd say the decline in our play when he's been out has contributed far more than his injuries to the overall disaster known as the 2009-10 Pacers. The difference isn't Danny it is somewhere else.

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 08:00 PM
I think it was a combination of players motivated and following the plan, this year is different because it seem like they are tired of this crappy system and coach and don't put as much effort, in fact the only time I see them playing the way they played last year was yesterday when JOB was not in the bench.

Well, I'd like to get paid what those guys get paid and not put forth much effort.

Either way, you're saying O'Brien was a great motivator last season.

Bball
02-03-2010, 08:04 PM
Well, I'd like to get paid what those guys get paid and not put forth much effort.

Either way, you're saying O'Brien was a great motivator last season.

I think the motivator was a collective understanding that O'Brien had ran his course and would soon be replaced....

...Only to be slapped in the face with the reality of a contract extension for O'Brien instead...

bellisimo
02-03-2010, 08:05 PM
btw - i forgot - but there was someone fired before the season started who was dealing with player relations or something? an ex pacer? any chance his firing had any impact?

ChicagoJ
02-03-2010, 08:07 PM
Oh come on.

You play well for a coach and he's going to get extended. Duh.

I don't like his gameplans either, but we Pacers fans know a lot a terrible coaches, we've had Irvine, Zeke and Versace. O'Brien, even with his stupid gimmicks, is better than those. And it wasn't that long ago that he proved it.

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 08:08 PM
Well, I'd like to get paid what those guys get paid and not put forth much effort.

Either way, you're saying O'Brien was a great motivator last season.

I think he was, but at the same time they got tired of the same philosophy(run, run and shoot) I also think that they got tired of JOB calling people out in public and screaming like crazy in the sidelines, look Larry Bird made that public comment about him supporting JOB and players need it to stay with the program for a reason, players and fans are tired of him.

judicata
02-03-2010, 08:15 PM
So then you're saying Jim O'Brien is a truly outstanding coach for getting this crappy team to 36 wins last season and getting a career year out of the dog named Troy Murphy?

This is hardly a two variable equation. With the exact same players and coach as last year, things could still be dramatically different.

Wage
02-03-2010, 08:54 PM
I think he was, but at the same time they got tired of the same philosophy(run, run and shoot) I also think that they got tired of JOB calling people out in public and screaming like crazy in the sidelines, look Larry Bird made that public comment about him supporting JOB and players need it to stay with the program for a reason, players and fans are tired of him.

I agree with this completely. I think last year the team still gave JOB the benefit of the doubt. This year, it seems they are pretty much done with him.

Apart from the coaching issue, you also have to consider that Granger and Troy had career years last year. Troy has dropped off a fair amount, and Granger is a shadow of his last year self.

Bball
02-03-2010, 08:59 PM
Oh come on.

You play well for a coach and he's going to get extended. Duh.

I don't like his gameplans either, but we Pacers fans know a lot a terrible coaches, we've had Irvine, Zeke and Versace. O'Brien, even with his stupid gimmicks, is better than those. And it wasn't that long ago that he proved it.

Actually... I believe they played hard and maxed out for that 36 wins. I don't think we have a team of malcontents... I think they tried to make it work and I think ultimately they were physically and mentally exhausted by it. If anything, I think they proved a point- "If we give it everything we have this is still as good as this is gonna get". And I believe they thought that message and finding was obvious throughout the organization.

I also think O'Brien flirted with losing the team several times last season and SOMEHOW (probably via the fact we do have a good group of players personally) kept the team out of the abyss.

I think the O'Brien extension went over like a lead balloon.

They learned a lesson last year (they would've been better off to quit on him and stayed that way)... and so this year were done with O'Brien in fairly short order...

Justin Tyme
02-03-2010, 09:33 PM
I don't think that Jack was that big of a difference, I actually think that he is overrated, if he is that good the Raptors should be killing everybody and as we witness yesterday they could not even beat this crapy team, I think that the DJ signing even out the JJ lost.


What is your definition of killing other teams. IIRC, the Raptors going into last nights game had won 15 out of their last 20 games, that's a 75% winning average. How many teams can say that? Who do you suppose has been the Raptors PG during that stretch?

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 10:38 PM
What is your definition of killing other teams. IIRC, the Raptors going into last nights game had won 15 out of their last 20 games, that's a 75% winning average. How many teams can say that? Who do you suppose has been the Raptors PG during that stretch?

Jarret Jack this year: 10.5 ppg and 4.6 asst 5mil a year

Dahntay Jones this year: 11.4ppg and 3.2reb and 2.2 asst 2.5mil

Earl Watson: 7.3 ppg 4.3 apg 2.8mil a year

yes, I prefer to have DJ and EW than JJ

D-BONE
02-03-2010, 10:53 PM
Jarret Jack this year: 10.5 ppg and 4.6 asst 5mil a year

Dahntay Jones this year: 11.4ppg and 3.2reb and 2.2 asst 2.5mil

Earl Watson: 7.3 ppg 4.3 apg 2.8mil a year

yes, I prefer to have DJ and EW than JJ

Those are just stats. I don't believe either of those guys is as good an all around player as Jack, nor do they have his intangibles. Neither guys is as good of a two way player plus intangibles as Jack.

Yeah DJ can have some toughness and he's a solid defender, although probably overrated in rep before coming here and still overvalued there by some, IMO. But he can't influence the game the same way Jack could from the PG as a leader/quarterback.

Watson is inconsistent defensively-although solid at times-and has zero offensive game too often. Definitely does not drive the ball as well as JJ.

Using one plus one is as good or better than one logic seems flawed. If your suggesting the combination of both of them equals all you could get from one guy in Jack, I don't see how that works out to our advantage.

And I'm not saying JJ was a top tier player by any stretch, but he was viable, if not ideal, as a strater. That tells you what I think of EW and DJ's status-role players.

BlueNGold
02-03-2010, 10:58 PM
Calderone is easily just as good at PG. He has a better shooting Pct. from 2 and 3. He has 6 assists/game versus Jack's 4.6. He has less turnovers 1.5 versus Jack's 2.5. ...making for a much, much better assist to turnover ratio. He also has a higher scoring average in slightly less time. So, their offense is clearly better with him on the floor.

Anyway, the Raptors are good because of Bosh, Bargnani and Turkoglu....not because of Calderone and Jack so much. I suspect if you subbed Watson for Jack their record would be identical.

BlueNGold
02-03-2010, 11:02 PM
Those are just stats. I don't believe either of those guys is as good an all around player as Jack, nor do they have his intangibles. Neither guys is as good of a two way player plus intangibles as Jack.

Yeah DJ can have some toughness and he's a solid defender, although probably overrated in rep before coming here and still overvalued there by some, IMO. But he can't influence the game the same way Jack could from the PG as a leader/quarterback.

Watson is inconsistent defensively-although solid at times-and has zero offensive game too often. Definitely does not drive the ball as well as JJ.

Using one plus one is as good or better than one logic seems flawed. If your suggesting the combination of both of them equals all you could get from one guy in Jack, I don't see how that works out to our advantage.

And I'm not saying JJ was a top tier player by any stretch, but he was viable, if not ideal, as a strater. That tells you what I think of EW and DJ's status-role players.

All the gnashing of teeth about Jack. He is paid more than he's worth and we made a good decision to let him walk. Yes, he is more valuable than Watson because he's a little better. He's more valuable than Jones because he's a decent PG. If Jones were used properly....goodness, not guarding PF's...the Pacers might get more value from him.

But yes, Jack is a better PG than anything we have at the moment, but if you combine Price (and his potential) plus Watson, I walk away happy from that transaction.

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 11:03 PM
Calderone is easily just as good at PG. He has a better shooting Pct. from 2 and 3. He has 6 assists/game versus Jack's 4.6. He has less turnovers 1.5 versus Jack's 2.5. ...making for a much, much better assist to turnover ratio. He also has a higher scoring average in slightly less time. So, their offense is clearly better with him on the floor.

Anyway, the Raptors are good because of Bosh, Bargnani and Turkoglu....not because of Calderone and Jack so much. I suspect if you subbed Watson for Jack their record would be identical.

yes. I forgot about Calderon, he is way better than Jack, I still don't understand why Jack is so overrated, he is maybe the second best pg in a good team.

BlueNGold
02-03-2010, 11:05 PM
yes. I forgot about Calderon, he is way better than Jack, I still don't understand why Jack is so overrated, he is maybe the second best pg in a good team.

Calderone is not that good defensively. Much better PG skills, yes. Jack is not a good PG. Just because we are weak in that position, doesn't make Jarrett Jack even an average starting NBA PG.

Edit: I'll take a little bit of that back. Jack and Calderone might top out as average NBA PG's. They are both decent, I suppose. On this board, however, you would think Jack was the second coming. Seriously, he is barely adequate on an 8 seed.

Dr. Awesome
02-03-2010, 11:20 PM
yes. I forgot about Calderon, he is way better than Jack, I still don't understand why Jack is so overrated, he is maybe the second best pg in a good team.

Maybe?

If I'm trying to build a Championship team, Jack is exactly the type of player I'd want as my backup PG. I don't think there is a better option for a backup PG for a team trying to win a Championship than Jack. Thats not to say he is the most talented backup PG in the NBA, but in terms of what he brings, I think he is the most valuable to a team trying to compete.

ksuttonjr76
02-03-2010, 11:21 PM
Well, I'd like to get paid what those guys get paid and not put forth much effort.

Either way, you're saying O'Brien was a great motivator last season.

I don't know what he was last year, but he's definately not that this year. Last year, I didn't mind them losing as much, because they would put a fight in almost every game. Actually, last year was an emotional roller coaster that I enjoyed riding. This year, I just don't see that fire in them, and watching the games p*sses me off more than anything else. The wife is really considering banning me from watching the Pacers games. Everytime I watch a stupid loss, I spend the next hour griping about JOB.

Infinite MAN_force
02-03-2010, 11:26 PM
You know, Jarret Jack actually took the starting job from Calderon, and since then, they have won a lot more games. Just saying...

I don't think Jarret Jack is overrated at all. Quite the opposite.

vnzla81
02-03-2010, 11:29 PM
Maybe?

If I'm trying to build a Championship team, Jack is exactly the type of player I'd want as my backup PG. I don't think there is a better option for a backup PG for a team trying to win a Championship than Jack. Thats not to say he is the most talented backup PG in the NBA, but in terms of what he brings, I think he is the most valuable to a team trying to compete.

5.0 mil for a back up pg? no thanks

Dr. Awesome
02-03-2010, 11:47 PM
5.0 mil for a back up pg? no thanks

I was talking about a Championship caliber team. If I'm competing for a Championship, I would absolutely give Jack 5 mil. because he is a player who can make a difference off the bench, and be a huge locker room presence. You can't even tell me you don't see the difference between this years team and last years team - I can promise you Marquis Daniels is not the reason for that.

For the Pacers, I still think we should have gave him the money. I wouldn't want him as the long term starter, but I would want him as my long term 6th man. That being said, I wouldn't give him that money if I thought O'Brien would be here for a long time. Jack never should have played SG last year - he even had a few games at SF, that was just a joke. As a backup PG I love the guy, as a temporary starter at PG until we find our long term solution I love the guy, anything else is just a mistake though(long term starter or SG/SF).

McKeyFan
02-04-2010, 12:09 AM
Why is this year's team losing more than last year?

Because last year they bought into JOB's uptempo pace where not as much emphasis was placed on defense.

Over the summer, they bought into JOB's cry for more defense.

But when the new season started, JOB did not act on his rhetoric. He started TJ for two months, and he is by no means a good defender. JOB reduced DJones minutes after it was clear he was a significant factor in several wins based on the defensive strategy JOB was supposed to have switched to. I don't have to talk about Murph.

I would think that the mixed messages (i.e. hypocrisy) coming from JOB was enough to demotivate Danny in particular and, to a lesser extent, Rush and Hibbert and even Dun, though his problems seem more injury related.

This year, JOB lost the team with his inconsistent words and actions.

joeyd
02-04-2010, 12:24 AM
I'm surprised that so few people voted for interior defense as the problem, and that Foster's injury was not offered as an option. I don't think many people appreciate the value of the offensive rebound and the opportunity for second-chance points. Let's look at some numbers:

Hibbert has played 1,166 minutes so far this season, and has 106 offensive boards (rate=0.09/minute). Troy Murphy has played 1,217 min so far and has 66 off. rebounds (rate=0.054/min). Foster played 255 min. and had 34 off. rebounds in that time (rate=0.133 min). He was on pace to better last year's totals.

Granted that Hibbert scores much more than Foster. But what this means is that when Hibbert is out, which is often, either due to a JOB decision or b/c of foul trouble, you get a huge drop-off in offensive boards with TM, although I think the point totals are similar. Now, if Tyler was healthy, you would get the best of all worlds. TH has played 511 min. and had 60 offensive boards, and his scoring if averaged over the full half season would be on par with TM and RH.

So...I'd say that the lack of JF and TH, both of whom contribute tremendous heart and effort in their minutes played, are the main factors as to why this team has struggled.

Bball
02-04-2010, 01:41 AM
Whats been the Pacers biggest contributor to a losing season so far?

When I see that question I'm not thinking entirely of the W-L record. I'm thinking of the absolute bad basketball we've seen on the court more times than not. The lack of effort. The blowouts.

All of that contributes to a poor W-L record. You might cure that with a different coach but a lack of talent still not change the W-L record. But you can't preach bad basketball and expect anything other than what we're seeing.

OTOH, preach a different approach that gives the team a chance to be competitive and at least the players will give you effort and as fans we'll get to see a better brand of basketball. And just maybe you find out the talent is as bad as you've thought. And maybe the W-L record does improve.

I absolutely do not expect these players to play hard for O'Brien at this point. I don't blame them. They tried it his way and it's bad, losing basketball for them.

Drewtone
02-04-2010, 05:53 AM
Anyway, the Raptors are good because of Bosh, Bargnani and Turkoglu....not because of Calderone and Jack so much. I suspect if you subbed Watson for Jack their record would be identical.

I strongly disagree. I spend a good deal of time in Toronto, and the consensus there is that the reason for the Raptor's increased success is 1a). Bargnani and 1b) Jack. Yes, Bosh is the best player, but he always has been.

Neither EW or Jones have Jack's leadership or other intangibles, and it could be argued that Jones is a part of our 'chemistry issue'.

Also, Jack is the one Danny was talking about in the offseason before he left. Wonder how much losing him and Mel (with whom Danny was close) have affected him this year.

Justin Tyme
02-04-2010, 09:25 AM
Jarret Jack this year: 10.5 ppg and 4.6 asst 5mil a year

Dahntay Jones this year: 11.4ppg and 3.2reb and 2.2 asst 2.5mil

Earl Watson: 7.3 ppg 4.3 apg 2.8mil a year

yes, I prefer to have DJ and EW than JJ


Yeah, but who's team is winning and will make the playoffs, the Pacers or the Raptors?

Jack had 17 points and 9 assists last night in another WIN, just in case you missed it.

He brings leadership that neither Watson nor Jones brings. That's one of those important things that doesn't show in the box scores!

Putnam
02-04-2010, 09:36 AM
Maybe Dahntay should play hockey. And maybe you should watch hockey.


Maybe you should starting watching ballet, because right now we have way too many players who dances out of the way of physical contact.



There, there, fellas.


http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae193/Putnam7777/cap361-1.jpg

Putnam
02-04-2010, 09:48 AM
You know, Jarret Jack actually took the starting job from Calderon, and since then, they have won a lot more games. Just saying...

What does it say when Calderon takes the job from Ford, But when Jack goes to Toronto he takes the job from Calderon? In other words, the same guy suddenly flourishes when he changes teams.

A lot of people will say that it shows how badly Bird muffed the trade and Jack's extension. Or they will say O'Brien's coaching explains it. To me, it shows that the whole Pacers team is dysfunctional. Every player on this team, and the coach, too, are better than they seem to be.

Justin Tyme
02-04-2010, 09:57 AM
All the gnashing of teeth about Jack. He is paid more than he's worth and we made a good decision to let him walk. Yes, he is more valuable than Watson because he's a little better. He's more valuable than Jones because he's a decent PG. If Jones were used properly....goodness, not guarding PF's...the Pacers might get more value from him.

But yes, Jack is a better PG than anything we have at the moment, but if you combine Price (and his potential) plus Watson, I walk away happy from that transaction.

If you combine Price with Jack, you'd even be happier.

Just b/c one has better stats, Calderone, doesn't mean he's the better PG. The Pacers found that out last year, and so has the Raptors this year.

Oh btw, is Foster worth the 6 mil a year Bird gave him? Want to compare Foster's stats and how many games he's played vs Jack's stats and how many games he's played, not to mention that it would have cost the Pacers less money? How's that 6 mil dollar man contributions helping the Pacers this year sitting out injured, again?

Justin Tyme
02-04-2010, 10:06 AM
5.0 mil for a back up pg? no thanks


He's cheaper than bench sitter 4th PG Ford and Tinsley!!!

Let's see Calderon took Ford's job, and Jack took Ford's job last year and Calderon's this year!!!!

ChicagoJ
02-04-2010, 12:11 PM
Look, I value mental tougness and leadership more than any other attribute.

Does Jarret Jack have all the "skillz" you want in a starting PG?

Heck no.

There are numerous PGs that are "Better" than him -statistically, running the offense, whatever.

But he's absolutely the type of person/ player you want on the court in the fourth quarter of a big game.

Did we have a big dropoff in talent when he left? Probably not. Did we have a momumental dropoff in leadership and toughness when he left?

I don't even think we're as good of a defensive team with the so-called defensive specialist. I think Jack's departure hurts our defense quite a bit more than Jones helps it.

Speed
02-04-2010, 12:16 PM
I asked this in another thread and I think it will be a big topic over the summer, but you still need to fill the Jarret Jack leadership void.

Skills, defense or whatever aren't what they miss from Jack, but that leadership.

He was overated defensively by me, when he first came here. Also, I had no idea what he brought in intangibles.

It still made sense to me long term to not resign him, but not for this year. To me, his skill level isn't special at the starting PG position. To me, this is allowing them to develop AJ some.

Now, if we are sitting here three years from now asking the same question about the leadership void and the talent level at starting point guard, then ya they should've kept him, since it would be apparent at that point, no good plan was in place to replace his leadership or get more realized talent at the starting PG spot.

ChicagoJ
02-04-2010, 12:23 PM
I asked this in another thread and I think it will be a big topic over the summer, but you still need to fill the Jarret Jack leadership void.

Skills, defense or whatever aren't what they miss from Jack, but that leadership.

He was overated defensively by me, when he first came here. Also, I had no idea what he brought in intangibles.

It still made sense to me long term to not resign him, but not for this year. To me, his skill level isn't special at the starting PG position. To me, this is allowing them to develop AJ some.

Now, if we are sitting here three years from now asking the same question about the leadership void and the talent level at starting point guard, then ya they should've kept him, since it would be apparent at that point, no good plan was in place to replace his leadership or get more realized talent at the starting PG spot.

Its really a shame that it was Jack's contract that was up last summer, not Ford's.

I understand the rationale of the business decision to let him go.

I would have reached a different conclusion because I would have paid a premium for proven mental toughness and leadership on a team that lacks mental toughness and leadership. But I understand that he's a very expensive backup (if we actually turn into the type of team we're allegedly building.)

I'm just not sure we can get there in the first place without leadership and mental toughness, With Jack long gone, Rush and Tyler need to show the NBA the same mental toughness and leadership they showed in college -- especially from college basketball's biggest stage.

Sookie
02-04-2010, 12:28 PM
Yeah, but who's team is winning and will make the playoffs, the Pacers or the Raptors?

Jack had 17 points and 9 assists last night in another WIN, just in case you missed it.

He brings leadership that neither Watson nor Jones brings. That's one of those important things that doesn't show in the box scores!

If we had Chris Bosh and the Raptors didn't that situation would most likely be reverse.

ChicagoJ
02-04-2010, 12:35 PM
If we had Chris Bosh and the Raptors didn't that situation would most likely be reverse.

You act like Bosh is a difference maker. He's been the best player on more "33-win" teams than teams that finish above 0.500.

NuffSaid
02-04-2010, 01:18 PM
As much as I want to blame it all on coach O'Brien, truth is I can't. Injuries play a big factor in how a team performs. Not having enough veteran experience is another aspect of it. Hence, one of the main reasons I think JOB doesn't play McRoberts or Soloman Jones more especially now that it's become very clear that the Pacers will be without Foster and Hansborough for pretty much the rest of the season.

Still, I believe that had JOB formed a solid rotation early on and just said, "This is our depth chart and no matter what this is what we're sticking to. So, guys come prepared to put in work. And if the guy ahead of you goes down you'd better be ready to step up and fill his shoes," I think every player at their relative positions could have gotten behind that. Instead, it's been a constant shuffling of the lineup and moving of players from one position to the next which I'm sure takes a toll on a player mentally and physically.

So, I added the last poll item because I think it truly fits what has happened with this team. Coach O'Brien certainly should take some heat for how bad things have gotten, but when you have a constant barrage of injuries to contend with it's difficult to pull things together.

ksuttonjr76
02-04-2010, 02:46 PM
As much as I want to blame it all on coach O'Brien, truth is I can't. Injuries play a big factor in how a team performs. Not having enough veteran experience is another aspect of it. Hence, one of the main reasons I think JOB doesn't play McRoberts or Soloman Jones more especially now that it's become very clear that the Pacers will be without Foster and Hansborough for pretty much the rest of the season.

Still, I believe that had JOB formed a solid rotation early on and just said, "This is our depth chart and no matter what this is what we're sticking to. So, guys come prepared to put in work. And if the guy ahead of you goes down you'd better be ready to step up and fill his shoes," I think every player at their relative positions could have gotten behind that. Instead, it's been a constant shuffling of the lineup and moving of players from one position to the next which I'm sure takes a toll on a player mentally and physically.

So, I added the last poll item because I think it truly fits what has happened with this team. Coach O'Brien certainly should take some heat for how bad things have gotten, but when you have a constant barrage of injuries to contend with it's difficult to pull things together.

So we start playing players LESS minutes as we lose players to injuries? Typical JOB thinking....

MagicRat
02-04-2010, 03:10 PM
You act like Bosh is a difference maker. He's been the best player on more "33-win" teams than teams that finish above 0.500.

Well, the wear and tear of the 230 lb. Bosh leaning on the 228 lb. Danny Granger forced the Pacers back to the Big Lineup. There's a difference.....

graphic-er
02-04-2010, 04:13 PM
I think its Jarrett Jack, but it also relates to the free agents we brought in because of it. Bird has said all along that he wanted to keep Jack but they didnt' have the money cause they had to take that 5 million and go sign 3 players with it. Well i'm sorry, He could have kept Jack and signed 2 scrub players from the D-league or the guys who invited to training to camp for the league minimum. We dont play Soloman Jones any meaningful minutes, and Jarret Jack is better than both Watson and Head combined. He should have matched that offer for Jack and picked up some scrubs to fill out the roster. Would be a much better team today, and for the future. We let a pretty good player go to pick up 3 guys who might not have been in the league this year. It is the dumbest move Bird has made so far. Move out talent for scrubs with established low ceilings. It does not equal winning basketball. Bird is an idiot. 5 million a year for Jack is a no brainer. Remember we paid Sarunas 5Mil a year, and everyone said that was the worst pick up in a long time. Who cares who the 12th-15th man on the team is, especially when you have a coach like JOB who wont' even play them.

NuffSaid
02-04-2010, 05:33 PM
So we start playing players LESS minutes as we lose players to injuries? Typical JOB thinking....
Where did you get that from my post? I've said no such thing. On the contrary! Allow me to expand on what I meant...

Had JOB established a firm rotation early on and stuck to it despite injuries to the 1st or 2nd string players, this team might have stood a far better chance of establishing consistency throughout their roster. Instead, what he has done was either shuffle the lineup for matchup purposes or relegate players who could have contribued specifically in the front-court, i.e., McRoberts and SoloJones, to the bench.

This isn't a "play McRoberts/Soloman Jones" petition. This is me voicing my opinion on how things could have been more favorable for this team had JOB done some things differently instead of insisting on sticking with a small-ball lineup. Players need two things in order to either become or remain positive contributors on any team: development and consistent playing time. McRoberts and SoloJ have received very little of either, yet when they are on the floor they do tend to contribute positively more often than negatively. I just think there was another way JOB could have approached the team's injury issues rather than saying those two players aren't good enough to play support roles to starters like Hibbert (C) or Murphy (SF). Solo (C) and McRoberts (PF) could have filled the voids of Foster (C) and Hansborough (PF) nicely if given the chance on a more consistant basis.

Justin Tyme
02-04-2010, 06:53 PM
If we had Chris Bosh and the Raptors didn't that situation would most likely be reverse.


"IF" I had 2 more numbers on my Hoosier Lottery ticket last Saturday, I'd have won 5 mil instead of a whopping $36! IF's don't count for much, now do they?

Shade
02-04-2010, 07:08 PM
I'm surprised that so few people voted for interior defense as the problem, and that Foster's injury was not offered as an option. I don't think many people appreciate the value of the offensive rebound and the opportunity for second-chance points. Let's look at some numbers:

Hibbert has played 1,166 minutes so far this season, and has 106 offensive boards (rate=0.09/minute). Troy Murphy has played 1,217 min so far and has 66 off. rebounds (rate=0.054/min). Foster played 255 min. and had 34 off. rebounds in that time (rate=0.133 min). He was on pace to better last year's totals.

Granted that Hibbert scores much more than Foster. But what this means is that when Hibbert is out, which is often, either due to a JOB decision or b/c of foul trouble, you get a huge drop-off in offensive boards with TM, although I think the point totals are similar. Now, if Tyler was healthy, you would get the best of all worlds. TH has played 511 min. and had 60 offensive boards, and his scoring if averaged over the full half season would be on par with TM and RH.

So...I'd say that the lack of JF and TH, both of whom contribute tremendous heart and effort in their minutes played, are the main factors as to why this team has struggled.

Foster also gets a lot of put-backs off his own missed bunnies.

ChicagoJ
02-04-2010, 07:23 PM
Foster also gets a lot of put-backs off his own missed bunnies.

I think he's gotten better over time, but Foster used to be famous for having a bunch of games where he shot 3-14 with 9 offensive rebounds. You know, the type of performance where all of his offensive rebounds were putback attempts of his own miss... followed by a putback attempt of his own miss... followed by a putback attempt of his own miss... followed by a putback attempt of his own miss...

For players like Foster that can't hit layups, "Impactive OR's"/ eOR's should be Total ORs less missed-putbacks.

Yes it is great hustle. But it is also pretty bad basketball.

BlueNGold
02-04-2010, 07:25 PM
If you combine Price with Jack, you'd even be happier.

Just b/c one has better stats, Calderone, doesn't mean he's the better PG. The Pacers found that out last year, and so has the Raptors this year.

Oh btw, is Foster worth the 6 mil a year Bird gave him? Want to compare Foster's stats and how many games he's played vs Jack's stats and how many games he's played, not to mention that it would have cost the Pacers less money? How's that 6 mil dollar man contributions helping the Pacers this year sitting out injured, again?

Just because Foster's deal is terrible, purely on a financial vs productivity standpoint, that does not mean we should have paid Jack big bucks.

Again, Jack is a decent PG...better than anyone on the Pacers right now. But he simply wasn't good enough to hang onto. Granger is good enough to hang onto. Hibbert and Rush have potential to be better than Jack...so you hang onto them. Jack has limited PG skills and he's topped out because of it....and his ceiling is not that great. He's not anything like losing Mark Jackson or a player with Jamaal Tinsley's talent...guys that could actually play the PG position on a contender.

BigRik
02-04-2010, 07:29 PM
Interior defense is a problem, but it could be improved if the coach would play the better interior denders that are on the roster. Gameplanning could also improve the interior defense some. Injuries have also been a factor, and we don't have the most talented roster in the league either. That said, the talent we have, could be used more effectively. The system used has been a failure, and the player rotations have been too. It does no good to sign a big man to shore up the interior defense and then not use him. Why draft a good post player and then try to run every time down the court and chuck a 3 before he gets to midcourt. I guess the coach and general manager need to get on the same page. THAT is the main problem.

ksuttonjr76
02-04-2010, 10:40 PM
Where did you get that from my post? I've said no such thing. On the contrary! Allow me to expand on what I meant...

Had JOB established a firm rotation early on and stuck to it despite injuries to the 1st or 2nd string players, this team might have stood a far better chance of establishing consistency throughout their roster. Instead, what he has done was either shuffle the lineup for matchup purposes or relegate players who could have contribued specifically in the front-court, i.e., McRoberts and SoloJones, to the bench.

This isn't a "play McRoberts/Soloman Jones" petition. This is me voicing my opinion on how things could have been more favorable for this team had JOB done some things differently instead of insisting on sticking with a small-ball lineup. Players need two things in order to either become or remain positive contributors on any team: development and consistent playing time. McRoberts and SoloJ have received very little of either, yet when they are on the floor they do tend to contribute positively more often than negatively. I just think there was another way JOB could have approached the team's injury issues rather than saying those two players aren't good enough to play support roles to starters like Hibbert (C) or Murphy (SF). Solo (C) and McRoberts (PF) could have filled the voids of Foster (C) and Hansborough (PF) nicely if given the chance on a more consistant basis.

Cool. I just misread your post. For moment, I thought that you lost your mind.

joeyd
02-05-2010, 03:09 AM
I think he's gotten better over time, but Foster used to be famous for having a bunch of games where he shot 3-14 with 9 offensive rebounds. You know, the type of performance where all of his offensive rebounds were putback attempts of his own miss... followed by a putback attempt of his own miss... followed by a putback attempt of his own miss... followed by a putback attempt of his own miss...

For players like Foster that can't hit layups, "Impactive OR's"/ eOR's should be Total ORs less missed-putbacks.

Yes it is great hustle. But it is also pretty bad basketball.

Hard to say. I looked at the stats for the last couple of years. He hits about 50% of his FG. He usually ranks among the lowest in terms of number of FG attempted for a regular rotation player and sometime starter. Unlike other players, he is very adept at putting back his own missed shots. I think that lately, he is no worse than any of our other players at missing bonehead shots from up close. Let's face it. If you are darn near 7 feet tall and shooting at a 10 foot basket, then assuming that your vertical leap is even only a mere 1 1/2 feet, you should pretty much make every basket. It bothers me when I see us miss a dunk or an easy layup; lack of concentration is usually the culprit here, I'm assuming.

Pacersfan46
02-05-2010, 04:01 AM
I haven't read but maybe 5 posts in this thread, all I saw was a lot of talk about Jack. I didn't think we'd miss him. I didn't appreciate him much when he was here, but this team sure misses him. He was exactly what this team needs at PG in J'OB's system. He's a point guard that can shoot, and even if he doesn't have much in the way of traditional PG skills ... this offense doesn't require that. So it was a good fit. While I'm not sold on AJ Price's shooting at this point, he certainly is better than Ford at it, and also doesn't dominate the ball. Meaning he looks better than Ford in this offense. I'm very curious what AJ will look like in a different offense. He shows flashes of being a good PG in the traditional sense at times. We won't see much more than that until JOB is gone however.

That said, I think this team without JOB coaching would top out at 35-40 wins with good coaching. There just isn't much talent on this team. Summer of 2011 can't get here fast enough ....

-- Steve --

ksuttonjr76
02-05-2010, 12:22 PM
I haven't read but maybe 5 posts in this thread, all I saw was a lot of talk about Jack. I didn't think we'd miss him. I didn't appreciate him much when he was here, but this team sure misses him. He was exactly what this team needs at PG in J'OB's system. He's a point guard that can shoot, and even if he doesn't have much in the way of traditional PG skills ... this offense doesn't require that. So it was a good fit. While I'm not sold on AJ Price's shooting at this point, he certainly is better than Ford at it, and also doesn't dominate the ball. Meaning he looks better than Ford in this offense. I'm very curious what AJ will look like in a different offense. He shows flashes of being a good PG in the traditional sense at times. We won't see much more than that until JOB is gone however.

That said, I think this team without JOB coaching would top out at 35-40 wins with good coaching. There just isn't much talent on this team. Summer of 2011 can't get here fast enough ....

-- Steve --

The talent is there. JOB's poor coaching is what making it seem like that Indiana "don't have enough talent". Until I see Indiana performing poorly under another coach, I'll never believe that Indiana "don't have enough talent".

ChicagoJ
02-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Hard to say. I looked at the stats for the last couple of years. He hits about 50% of his FG. He usually ranks among the lowest in terms of number of FG attempted for a regular rotation player and sometime starter. Unlike other players, he is very adept at putting back his own missed shots. I think that lately, he is no worse than any of our other players at missing bonehead shots from up close. Let's face it. If you are darn near 7 feet tall and shooting at a 10 foot basket, then assuming that your vertical leap is even only a mere 1 1/2 feet, you should pretty much make every basket. It bothers me when I see us miss a dunk or an easy layup; lack of concentration is usually the culprit here, I'm assuming.

Stats won't help you with this. The play-by-play log or just watching the old games will help.

He had an 12-OR game about four years ago in which six or seven of the ORs came in a single - God awful - sequence. Bill Walton would have left the table and killed him in the name of fundamentals if he were announcing that game.

If you can find the play-by-play log of this game you'll see what I'm talking about:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200612020DEN.html

This game was exaggerated because he was comically bad. But in that era, he had a number of games similar to this. I think his ability to hit putbacks has increased, and it was no surprise to me that his ORs went down a bit when he stopped padding that stat with his own misses.

Justin Tyme
02-05-2010, 02:21 PM
Just because Foster's deal is terrible, purely on a financial vs productivity standpoint, that does not mean we should have paid Jack big bucks.

Again, Jack is a decent PG...better than anyone on the Pacers right now. But he simply wasn't good enough to hang onto. Granger is good enough to hang onto. Hibbert and Rush have potential to be better than Jack...so you hang onto them. Jack has limited PG skills and he's topped out because of it....and his ceiling is not that great. He's not anything like losing Mark Jackson or a player with Jamaal Tinsley's talent...guys that could actually play the PG position on a contender.


Big bucks?? Since when is 4.5 mil big bucks for a starting PG for this year? 15-16 mil for PG's this year that are no longer a Pacer and 4th Pg bench sitter on the bench is big bucks wasted!!

Jack's ceiling isn't the point, it's what he brought that is! He brings the things that don't show up in the box scores, and that's what made him so valuable. The things this team is so lacking this year.

It's so funny how all the Foster apologists talk about how great Foster's intangibles are, and Bird paid more for those intangibles. That worked out so well this season and probably next season too that Bird should give Foster another extension next year. (This paragrapgh in GREEN!)

d_c
02-05-2010, 02:46 PM
The talent is there. JOB's poor coaching is what making it seem like that Indiana "don't have enough talent". Until I see Indiana performing poorly under another coach, I'll never believe that Indiana "don't have enough talent".

The talent is there for maybe a 38 win team if everything goes about as well as possible, sure.

Also, in the 2004-2005 season, the 76ers won 43 games with JOB as coach (his only year there). The 76ers haven't won that many games since, so I guess finding a coach who is easily better than JOB isn't as easy as some people think. Either that or some people don't want to believe that season actually happened, or the season where a JOB coached team made it to the conference finals. The way some people make it sound, the Celtics would have beaten the Shaq-Kobe Lakers if someone else other than JOB was coach.

ksuttonjr76
02-05-2010, 04:00 PM
The talent is there for maybe a 38 win team if everything goes about as well as possible, sure.

Also, in the 2004-2005 season, the 76ers won 43 games with JOB as coach (his only year there). The 76ers haven't won that many games since, so I guess finding a coach who is easily better than JOB isn't as easy as some people think. Either that or some people don't want to believe that season actually happened, or the season where a JOB coached team made it to the conference finals. The way some people make it sound, the Celtics would have beaten the Shaq-Kobe Lakers if someone else other than JOB was coach.

Your point? JOB is in his 3rd year with Indiana and is doing WORSE with a losing philosophy.

d_c
02-05-2010, 04:16 PM
Your point? JOB is in his 3rd year with Indiana and is doing WORSE with a losing philosophy.

My point is it's foolish to think that getting rid of JOB is automatically going to result in a bunch of rainbows coming out and flowers sprouting out of the ground. Anybody who thinks that's going to happen is delusional and is putting the cart before the horse. This league is about players and talent far more than it is about coaches and systems.

Teams that have ridded themselves of JOB went on to do worse than with him, not better. That is a fact that some people don't seem to want to believe. It never happened. Couldn't have happened. Oh, but it did.

Happy days didn't just all of a sudden come along as soon as he left town, as lot of people would like to believe would happen. Boston never did better after JOB left until they added 2 veteran all-stars.

Edit: Most people believe in Bird's 3 way plan, but they don't believe in his choice of coach. Well, that coach is part of the 3 year plan, folks. And Bird stands behind it. The 3 year plan revolves around getting new players in 2011. The coach is far less of a big deal. It could be a different coach, and probably will be, but point is that Bird is A LOT MORE concerned about the players comprising the roster than who happens to be coaching it. Bird's plan revolves around changing the players. If you don't realize that, then you completely misinterpret what Bird's 3 year plan actually is.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2010, 04:53 PM
This team is probably bottom-five in talent and bottom-ten in coaching.

Both need to improve. No doubt about it.

The talent can improve because young guys like Rush, Hibbert, Tyler and Price can grow into being better players than they are now.

But a top-ten coach with this roster is not going to get them to 0.500. Unless, of course, he gets Rush and Hibbert way ahead of schedule. But in the short term, there will still be losses as they figure out how to contribute consistently. (And that's a typical challenge for a second-year player.)

NuffSaid
02-05-2010, 06:17 PM
Cool. I just misread your post. For moment, I thought that you lost your mind.
No...I'm very much sane, my friend. :D A bit tic'd off at our team's injury situation and some of the boneheaded coaching decisions that have gone down, but very much still sane. :happydanc

NuffSaid
02-05-2010, 06:21 PM
Most people believe in Bird's 3 way plan, but they don't believe in his choice of coach. Well, that coach is part of the 3 year plan, folks. And Bird stands behind it. The 3 year plan revolves around getting new players in 2011. The coach is far less of a big deal. It could be a different coach, and probably will be, but point is that Bird is A LOT MORE concerned about the players comprising the roster than who happens to be coaching it. Bird's plan revolves around changing the players. If you don't realize that, then you completely misinterpret what Bird's 3 year plan actually is.
I don't have a problem with that as long as he's able to acquire the right players who fit the coach's style of play. Right now, we don't have that mainly because both Granger and Dunleavy aren't knocking down their perimeter shots. If they were playing anywhere near where they've played in the past, i.e., Granger of last year and Dunleavy before his knee surgery, with BRush rounding into form, NONE of this would be an issue.

BlueNGold
02-05-2010, 07:06 PM
Big bucks?? Since when is 4.5 mil big bucks for a starting PG for this year? 15-16 mil for PG's this year that are no longer a Pacer and 4th Pg bench sitter on the bench is big bucks wasted!!

Jack's ceiling isn't the point, it's what he brought that is! He brings the things that don't show up in the box scores, and that's what made him so valuable. The things this team is so lacking this year.

It's so funny how all the Foster apologists talk about how great Foster's intangibles are, and Bird paid more for those intangibles. That worked out so well this season and probably next season too that Bird should give Foster another extension next year. (This paragrapgh in GREEN!)

Here ya go in green.

Jack signed a 4 year, 20 million dollar contract with the Raptors. That is overpaying if you consider him a backup. It's a great deal if you want him as your starting PG and legitimately think he's "the guy". I suppose it's a fine deal if you consider him your solution "for now". But 4 years is not "for now".

So we are left with the question whether he's "the guy" when you ponder whether his contract is a good investment.

Well, he's not "the guy". Mark Jackson was "the guy". Jamaal Tinsley was "the guy". Jarrett Jack is not that good. I suppose we could have used him for a year or two, but I certainly don't want him running this offense for 4 years. Therefore, he is a backup by year 3 in his contract at the latest...a backup who will be getting paid in excess of 5M/yr his last two years. Not a good decision.

So, while I know Jack is a better PG than Watson/TJ/Diener and Price (for the moment)...there is not a huge gap and I don't think you lock him up for 4 years...not when it might restrict our flexibility to sign some guys in a year or two who are more important to the long term plans. He's simply not good enough to invest that much time and money and override these concerns, and apparently the Pacers agreed.

So, I'm pleased the Pacers signed Watson and Price for less in total, leaving their options open to find a true starting PG....one capable of efficiently running the offense....something that Jack will never do very well.

BlueNGold
02-05-2010, 07:13 PM
BTW, the Raptors are nuts. They signed Calderone for over 8M/yr. Maybe rich and nuts. I suppose when you compare Jack to Calderone, he's a fantastic deal...

sportfireman
02-05-2010, 07:13 PM
Here ya go in green.

Jack signed a 4 year, 20 million dollar contract with the Raptors. That is overpaying if you consider him a backup. It's a great deal if you want him as your starting PG and legitimately think he's "the guy". I suppose it's a fine deal if you consider him your solution "for now". But 4 years is not "for now".

So we are left with the question whether he's "the guy" when you ponder whether his contract is a good investment.

Well, he's not "the guy". Mark Jackson was "the guy". Jamaal Tinsley was "the guy". Jarrett Jack is not that good. I suppose we could have used him for a year or two, but I certainly don't want him running this offense for 4 years. Therefore, he is a backup by year 3 in his contract at the latest...a backup who will be getting paid in excess of 5M/yr his last two years. Not a good decision.

So, while I know Jack is a better PG than Watson/TJ/Diener and Price (for the moment)...there is not a huge gap and I don't think you lock him up for 4 years...not when it might restrict our flexibility to sign some guys in a year or two who are more important to the long term plans. He's simply not good enough to invest that much time and money and override these concerns, and apparently the Pacers agreed.

So, I'm pleased the Pacers signed Watson and Price for less in total, leaving their options open to find a true starting PG....one capable of efficiently running the offense....something that Jack will never do very well.

So you feel Price is not capable of the job?

BlueNGold
02-05-2010, 07:17 PM
So you feel Price is not capable of the job?

As a rookie second round pick, you gotta be pleased. But he has much to prove. We are so bad, it's hard to measure him...

vnzla81
02-05-2010, 07:18 PM
BTW, the Raptors are nuts. They signed Calderone for over 8M/yr. Maybe rich and nuts. I suppose when you compare Jack to Calderone, he's a fantastic deal...

they are not nuts, they are just worry about losing "the Rupaul of centers"

BlueNGold
02-05-2010, 07:25 PM
they are not nuts, they are just worry about losing "the Rupaul of centers"

Maybe so.

Hey, have you noticed that the Raptors like to acquire competing PG's? They must like PG controversy with TJ, Calderone and Jack. All have interesting talents, but all are very flawed as PG's. That's the problem with those guys. They are all paid pretty well and think they're the man....but all fall short of a PG you would want on a contender. It's too important of a position for mediocrity.

Naptown_Seth
02-05-2010, 07:27 PM
I disagree with Jay that a different coach would burn them out. I think WEED THEM OUT is more accurate.

A more defensive oriented style would have forced Troy to less minutes, TJ to the bench almost immediately, demanded more PT for Solo and McRoberts which by now would be paying off with more stable play there, and due to ball protection would have demanded a slower, more organized offensive style to go with it.

Rick would have posted Roy from day one and he would have been at his current level by the end of DEC. Rush would have been given a system and would have hit his comfort level long ago too. Price would have seen more PT sooner and would have been working the same PnR with Roy that we saw in the summer.

DJones would play but would also be reigned in on some of the 3s and some of the forced offense. Given a structure to play off of, DJ would be the guy getting the extra pass shot when teams aggressively attacked Roy, Danny and Rush and tried to chase down ball movement. This would improve DJ's FG%.

Ford, while benched, would not be left for dead and would be giving them scoring punch off the bench.

Troy would have been swung to the wings much sooner (which he is doing now) and not just used as a trailer or PnPop guy.

Dun struggling would have meant bench time/recoup time until he proved he was really capable of playing close to his normal level.



There would be less losing, more direction, more focus on the kids, and therefore a greater general sense of hope. That counters any burnout.

In fact I think you burn guys out far more when you demand of them like JOB clearly does but they don't think those demands are going in a clear direction.

Players WANT TO FOLLOW. Brown lost the Pacers because he did things like ride Reggie even when Reggie was the hardest worker. But if you work them AND reward them, and they believe in the style and direction...they'll follow you all the way to the top.


There is no way Charlotte has more talent than Indy at this point. There is no way Houston has more sheer talent either. Teams like Indy could be close to .500 on coordination and leadership alone (from the coach). And they'd be happy about that fact, not sick of it.

vnzla81
02-05-2010, 07:32 PM
Maybe so.

Hey, have you noticed that the Raptors like to acquire competing PG's? They must like PG controversy with TJ, Calderone and Jack. All have interesting talents, but all are very flawed as PG's. That's the problem with those guys. They are all paid pretty well and think they're the man....but all fall short of a PG you would want on a contender. It's too important of a position for mediocrity.

I actually like Calderon a lot, I think that if he was in a good defensive team he could do more than what he is doing now, Jack is a multi position player reason why I was fine that he left, teams think that they can get away with him at the 2 and he is not that good there, he is a decent back up pg but he would never be the answer in a championship team, he can also win and lose games for you because he think that he is the next coming like many people here think of him.

Naptown_Seth
02-05-2010, 07:51 PM
Stats won't help you with this. The play-by-play log or just watching the old games will help.

He had an 12-OR game about four years ago in which six or seven of the ORs came in a single - God awful - sequence. Bill Walton would have left the table and killed him in the name of fundamentals if he were announcing that game.

If you can find the play-by-play log of this game you'll see what I'm talking about:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200612020DEN.html

This game was exaggerated because he was comically bad. But in that era, he had a number of games similar to this. I think his ability to hit putbacks has increased, and it was no surprise to me that his ORs went down a bit when he stopped padding that stat with his own misses.
You do realize that his FGM + (Oreb-FG miss)/FGA is through the roof, like crazy high.

The stat shows that he's nowhere close to "padding his stats". How can he pad his numbers if he's pulling down 5 Oreb on 2 misses? Oh boy, the 11 reb night is only 9, but his FG% goes to 100%, that's terrible.

Come on Jay.


Jeff was 1383 of 2776
1393 misses, 1923 OReb
Turn that into
2776 of 2776 for 100% lifetime FG (hmm, not bad)
drops Oreb to .76 per game, DReb stay 4.2 per game, total of about 5 rpg

This makes his scoring 9 ppg, 5 rpg on 21 mpg and 100% from the floor.
(2776 makes, 763 FTM, 6 3PM)


Yes, his 5.1 ppg, 2.1 Orpg, 7.0 rpg on 49.8% is really padded.


Contrast with Dale Davis
He was 3592 of 6779
3187 misses, 3303 OReb
Turns into
6779 of 6779, 100% FG
drops OReb to .11 per game (hmm, lower than Jeff, stat pad alert), DReb 4.8, total of about 5 rpg

His scoring then is 13.8, 5 rpg on 27 mpg

The per 36 for the two in the "never missed a shot so he never got his own OReb" stat
Jeff 15.4, 8.6 rpg
Dale 18.3, 6.5 rpg

Hmm, guess Jeff didn't pad the rebounding number quite as much as some people like to suggest.



Don't make the mistake of saying "Dale didn't get his own rebounds so he didn't pad" because it's not going to make things look better. When you take that angle you are saying "Dale missed a lot of shots and who knows who got those rebounds because he sure didn't".

I'd rather have Jeff missing 50% and then rebounding half those than Dale shooting 55% and not recovering any of his own misses.




Jeff pads his OReb is a myth, created partially by people who forgot they watched Dale, Tony and Rik do the same thing, along with lots of other players. Jeff created more new offensive possessions than Dale did, even with FG misses factored in.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2010, 07:58 PM
Oh wait a minute.

It was watching Dale Davis that clued me into this "padded OR" stat in the first place. Out of respect for Peck, I just leave part of the commentary out. I'm not saying Jeff is the worst ever at this. He's just the most recent example.

Dale Davis's rebounding stats were a joke. But I did respect his rugged defense and ability to get tough rebounds at crunch time.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2010, 08:01 PM
I disagree with Jay that a different coach would burn them out. I think WEED THEM OUT is more accurate.

I'm actually trying to say the opposite. You don't waste "this roster" on a turnaround coach... I think that's what I said.

This roster would drive most "turnaround" coaches to alcohol. They'd quit.

You want to give them something to actually work with.

Not this roster. At least, not yet for Rush, Tyler, Hibbert, Price, etc.

You put Brownie in charge of this team and don't let him make trades and he quits before the all-star break.

sportfireman
02-05-2010, 08:16 PM
As a rookie second round pick, you gotta be pleased. But he has much to prove. We are so bad, it's hard to measure him...

he's a 2nd rd pick that should have been a 1st but off court issues changed that up. why can't we atleast give him a chance before we say we need a TRUE pg?

ksuttonjr76
02-05-2010, 10:35 PM
My point is it's foolish to think that getting rid of JOB is automatically going to result in a bunch of rainbows coming out and flowers sprouting out of the ground. Anybody who thinks that's going to happen is delusional and is putting the cart before the horse. This league is about players and talent far more than it is about coaches and systems.

Teams that have ridded themselves of JOB went on to do worse than with him, not better. That is a fact that some people don't seem to want to believe. It never happened. Couldn't have happened. Oh, but it did.

Happy days didn't just all of a sudden come along as soon as he left town, as lot of people would like to believe would happen. Boston never did better after JOB left until they added 2 veteran all-stars.

Edit: Most people believe in Bird's 3 way plan, but they don't believe in his choice of coach. Well, that coach is part of the 3 year plan, folks. And Bird stands behind it. The 3 year plan revolves around getting new players in 2011. The coach is far less of a big deal. It could be a different coach, and probably will be, but point is that Bird is A LOT MORE concerned about the players comprising the roster than who happens to be coaching it. Bird's plan revolves around changing the players. If you don't realize that, then you completely misinterpret what Bird's 3 year plan actually is.

The team certainly can't get worse. He doesn't even try to coach this team as it SHOULD be coached unless he's forced by injuries. Why do players have to get hurt before JOB finds some intelligence on how to coach?

As for the Boston teams....
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2002.html
24-24 (2000-2001)
49-33 (2001-2002, ECF)
44-38 (2002-2003, swept in the semifinals)
22-24 (Looks like he was well on his way)

I don't know HOW he coached them to winning seasons with only two players scoring in double figures and with LESS talent than what Indiana CURRENTLY has. Statswise, it's pretty much the same stupid scheme. Outscore opponents with a ton 3's, and play little D. You said Boston didn't improve after JOB...that's a lie. Doc Rivers had records of...

45-37 (2004-2005, playoffs)
33-49 (2005-2006, team had 4 rookies and 3 2nd year players)
24-58 (2006-2007, Paul Pierce played only 46 games)
66-16 (2007-2008, NBA Champions)
62-20 (2008-2009)

Let's look at Philly...JOB had a record of 43-39. Here's another lie by you. Philly had a record of 33-49 the following season, HOWEVER they appeared in the playoffs 5 seasons in a row under Larry Brown.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/

Then JOB brings his worthless tail to Indiana, and we have records of 36-46 two years in a row and 18-32 this season. Based on his track record and history, there's a higher probability that we'll become a BETTER team under a different coach. Heck, it looks we might have one losing season then playoff appearances after that, since the talent is already in place with the right coach.

BlueNGold
02-06-2010, 12:52 AM
he's a 2nd rd pick that should have been a 1st but off court issues changed that up. why can't we atleast give him a chance before we say we need a TRUE pg?

I'm a Price fan. He might be a legit starting PG in the NBA. The fact he looks better than veteran backups on this team is at least a good sign. Do, in my book he has exactly that....a chance. More than TJ, Earl and Diener....so I pretty much agree with you.

joeyd
02-06-2010, 01:50 AM
You do realize that his FGM + (Oreb-FG miss)/FGA is through the roof, like crazy high.

The stat shows that he's nowhere close to "padding his stats". How can he pad his numbers if he's pulling down 5 Oreb on 2 misses? Oh boy, the 11 reb night is only 9, but his FG% goes to 100%, that's terrible.

Come on Jay.

Jeff was 1383 of 2776
1393 misses, 1923 OReb
Turn that into
2776 of 2776 for 100% lifetime FG (hmm, not bad)
drops Oreb to .76 per game, DReb stay 4.2 per game, total of about 5 rpg

This makes his scoring 9 ppg, 5 rpg on 21 mpg and 100% from the floor.
(2776 makes, 763 FTM, 6 3PM)

Yes, his 5.1 ppg, 2.1 Orpg, 7.0 rpg on 49.8% is really padded.

Contrast with Dale Davis
He was 3592 of 6779
3187 misses, 3303 OReb
Turns into
6779 of 6779, 100% FG
drops OReb to .11 per game (hmm, lower than Jeff, stat pad alert), DReb 4.8, total of about 5 rpg

His scoring then is 13.8, 5 rpg on 27 mpg

The per 36 for the two in the "never missed a shot so he never got his own OReb" stat
Jeff 15.4, 8.6 rpg
Dale 18.3, 6.5 rpg

Hmm, guess Jeff didn't pad the rebounding number quite as much as some people like to suggest.

Don't make the mistake of saying "Dale didn't get his own rebounds so he didn't pad" because it's not going to make things look better. When you take that angle you are saying "Dale missed a lot of shots and who knows who got those rebounds because he sure didn't".

I'd rather have Jeff missing 50% and then rebounding half those than Dale shooting 55% and not recovering any of his own misses.

Jeff pads his OReb is a myth, created partially by people who forgot they watched Dale, Tony and Rik do the same thing, along with lots of other players. Jeff created more new offensive possessions than Dale did, even with FG misses factored in.

Thanks to Naptown Seth for providing the stats which do really make the case that the Foster injury was not a trivial issue in terms of contributing to what will be a losing season.

Some other fun facts for those that are on the pro-Davis/anti-Foster side of the debate: Foster trails Davis by nearly 5,000 minutes played for the Pacers, yet only trails Davis by about 350 offensive rebounds. If he had been able to continue to compile his yearly average OReb totals, he would have taken over 1st place all-time for the Pacers in that category (he's currently 3rd). He is currently #6 in total rebounds and #9 in steals despite playing significantly less minutes than those ranked higher than him. If he played another 2 years, even with a drop-off, he'd likely rank in the top 5 in all rebounding categories and #7 in steals by the time he would retire. Probably not enough to retire his jersey, but signs of significant contributions, nonetheless.

McKeyFan
02-06-2010, 01:09 PM
But the reason he's played a lot fewer minutes than Dale is because he's not as tough as Dale.

d_c
02-06-2010, 01:49 PM
The team certainly can't get worse. He doesn't even try to coach this team as it SHOULD be coached unless he's forced by injuries. Why do players have to get hurt before JOB finds some intelligence on how to coach?

As for the Boston teams....
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2002.html
24-24 (2000-2001)
49-33 (2001-2002, ECF)
44-38 (2002-2003, swept in the semifinals)
22-24 (Looks like he was well on his way)

I don't know HOW he coached them to winning seasons with only two players scoring in double figures and with LESS talent than what Indiana CURRENTLY has. Statswise, it's pretty much the same stupid scheme. Outscore opponents with a ton 3's, and play little D. You said Boston didn't improve after JOB...that's a lie. Doc Rivers had records of...

45-37 (2004-2005, playoffs)
33-49 (2005-2006, team had 4 rookies and 3 2nd year players)
24-58 (2006-2007, Paul Pierce played only 46 games)
66-16 (2007-2008, NBA Champions)
62-20 (2008-2009)

Let's look at Philly...JOB had a record of 43-39. Here's another lie by you. Philly had a record of 33-49 the following season, HOWEVER they appeared in the playoffs 5 seasons in a row under Larry Brown.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/

Then JOB brings his worthless tail to Indiana, and we have records of 36-46 two years in a row and 18-32 this season. Based on his track record and history, there's a higher probability that we'll become a BETTER team under a different coach. Heck, it looks we might have one losing season then playoff appearances after that, since the talent is already in place with the right coach.

Uh, when did I lie?

I said Boston never outdid what JOB did until they they added two veteran all-stars. JOB reached the conference finals. Again, nobody seems to want to believe it happened, but it did. Boston never achieved that again until they made their two big trades. Doc Rivers never outdid him until that. That's what I stated.

JOB only coached Phillly for ONE SEASON, when they won 43 games in 2004-2005. They have not matched that win total ever since. I never said he outdid Larry Brown (who is a better coach), but he outdid everyone in Philly not named Larry Brown.

In fact, consider this: Since 1991, JOB has the 2nd best record among all 76ers coaches. No coach other than Larry Brown has won more than JOB's 43 win total in 2004-2005 other than Brown, who matched or surpassed it 4 times in his 6 years of coaching the team.

Would I rather have someone else other than JOB? Sure, there are plenty of other coaches I'd rather have, but right now it's putting the cart before the horse. Bird is rightfully more concerned about the talent on the roster. He talks about the 3 year plan and the flexibility to make massive roster changes in 2011, but somehow people are confusing this with simply changing the coach and not much else.

Maybe Bird doesn't like JOB's coaching style that much either, but it's pretty clear (through his words and actions) that he puts a much higher priority on player changes than coaching changes.

ChicagoJ
02-06-2010, 02:38 PM
And there are at least a handful of coaches around the league where JO'B appears to be a serious upgrade.

ksuttonjr76
02-06-2010, 04:01 PM
Uh, when did I lie?

I said Boston never outdid what JOB did until they they added two veteran all-stars. JOB reached the conference finals. Again, nobody seems to want to believe it happened, but it did. Boston never achieved that again until they made their two big trades. Doc Rivers never outdid him until that. That's what I stated.

JOB only coached Phillly for ONE SEASON, when they won 43 games in 2004-2005. They have not matched that win total ever since. I never said he outdid Larry Brown (who is a better coach), but he outdid everyone in Philly not named Larry Brown.

In fact, consider this: Since 1991, JOB has the 2nd best record among all 76ers coaches. No coach other than Larry Brown has won more than JOB's 43 win total in 2004-2005 other than Brown, who matched or surpassed it 4 times in his 6 years of coaching the team.

Would I rather have someone else other than JOB? Sure, there are plenty of other coaches I'd rather have, but right now it's putting the cart before the horse. Bird is rightfully more concerned about the talent on the roster. He talks about the 3 year plan and the flexibility to make massive roster changes in 2011, but somehow people are confusing this with simply changing the coach and not much else.

Maybe Bird doesn't like JOB's coaching style that much either, but it's pretty clear (through his words and actions) that he puts a much higher priority on player changes than coaching changes.

There's enough talent on this roster to be a .500 team. Of course, no one will believe that unless we're churning out all-star players every year. Also, never mind my previous post. My stupid butt can't read. Brown coached the 76'ers before JOB.

d_c
02-06-2010, 04:38 PM
There's enough talent on this roster to be a .500 team. Of course, no one will believe that unless we're churning out all-star players every year. Also, never mind my previous post. My stupid butt can't read. Brown coached the 76'ers before JOB.

Sure, maybe a .500 team if Phil Jackson took over this squad and everything went as well as possible.

But I doubt Phil Jackson is looking at this roster out of curiosity and just dying to come coach it for the express purpose of proving that the Pacers have .500 talent and that he's so much better than JOB. People like him have higher aspirations than that.

Now if you clearly have above average talent, then that's when coaches who are a lot closer to Phil Jackson's caliber will start showing interest in coaching the team. But you don't have that talent right now and that's what Bird is correctly focusing on. He's smart enough to focus on what matters (the players), unlike some people here who have lost sight of what his 3 year plan is about.

ChicagoJ
02-06-2010, 07:35 PM
This is not a 0.500 roster.

They overacheived to get to 36 wins last season.

Peck
02-06-2010, 08:28 PM
Thanks to Naptown Seth for providing the stats which do really make the case that the Foster injury was not a trivial issue in terms of contributing to what will be a losing season.

Some other fun facts for those that are on the pro-Davis/anti-Foster side of the debate: Foster trails Davis by nearly 5,000 minutes played for the Pacers, yet only trails Davis by about 350 offensive rebounds. If he had been able to continue to compile his yearly average OReb totals, he would have taken over 1st place all-time for the Pacers in that category (he's currently 3rd). He is currently #6 in total rebounds and #9 in steals despite playing significantly less minutes than those ranked higher than him. If he played another 2 years, even with a drop-off, he'd likely rank in the top 5 in all rebounding categories and #7 in steals by the time he would retire. Probably not enough to retire his jersey, but signs of significant contributions, nonetheless.

Yes, everyone knew this would drag me out of the lurking mode.

There is a reason Jeff Foster has played more seasons yet hasn't played in close to the amount of min. that Dale Davis has with the Indiana Pacers.

He's not even close to being as good.

Dale Davis as an old man after being gone for almost 5 years comes back to the Pacers and Foster hits the pines again while Davis starts and even he didn't complain because he knew the truth.

I've had this argument with people for years. If Foster was so good he would be playing more min. a game, period.

Now to Jeff's credit he has been misused by the Pacers and really probably could have played more min. a game if he were ever given the chance to be the power forward and not have to sumo wrestle centers for his entire career.

I notice you chose to look at steals yet for some reason I don't seem to find Jeff's name in the top 10 in blocked shots even though he has been here 10 years. Actually for a center that is kind of embarassing if you think about it. The 10th best shot blocker (A. Davis) played like four seasons with the Pacers.

As to Dale padding his own stats for rebounding? We like to call that bagging you own grocery's.:-p

D-BONE
02-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Foster's a good rebounder no question, but he is not and never has been a full-time starting quality player both due to his overall game and his durability.

Was DD limited offensively? Yes, but he was tough as hell, more physical, added more presence, could defend, block, screen, and rebound. Plus, he was virtually never hurt.

Foster is a great player for his role and limitations, but I can't buy him being on Davis's level in an overall comparison.

Bball
02-07-2010, 01:04 AM
Plus, he was virtually never hurt.



He was hurt... But it rarely stopped him...

joeyd
02-07-2010, 02:02 AM
There is a reason Jeff Foster has played more seasons yet hasn't played in close to the amount of min. that Dale Davis has with the Indiana Pacers...

He's not even close to being as good....

I've had this argument with people for years. If Foster was so good he would be playing more min. a game, period...

I notice you chose to look at steals yet for some reason I don't seem to find Jeff's name in the top 10 in blocked shots even though he has been here 10 years. Actually for a center that is kind of embarassing if you think about it.

:-p

Peck, to be objective I will admit that you raise some good points in your response above. You'll notice that I've tried to avoid saying that so-and-so was the best---I got on board as a Pacers fan just after Davis' first stint with the team, so I never paid much attention to him in his prime. So I only had the stats to compare. The last line of my last post sums it up for me about Foster: "Probably not (good) enough to retire his jersey, but signs of significant contributions, nonetheless." I can't argue with someone when they say whether or not someone is as good as another person when I haven't fully appreciated the other person. But I think its reasonable to offer the view that Foster's absence (and as I'd mentioned previously, the loss of TH's potential for scoring and retrieving Orebs) had as much to do with the way this season is going as the myriad of other reasons suggested.

Peck
02-07-2010, 03:05 AM
Oh no doubt the loss of Foster for this season and really a lot of last season has hurt the club.

In truth I would love to see Jeff matched up on the floor with Roy Hibbert, but of course we would need another coach for that to occur as neither of those players s p r e a d the floor as JO'B wants.

I know that this is kind of cliche' to say but if you never really saw Dale you can NOT measure the value of his game by just looking at his stat line.

Here it is 10 full years later and to this day you will still read a lot of people on here say man we need a Dale Davis type player (and no I am not the one saying it). As good as Jeff was I don't know that in 10 years someone is going to go if only we had a Jeff Foster type player. That is not an insult to Jeff btw, every team and every coach would love to have a Jeff Foster type player, but even though he never will go into the hall of fame or anything like that Dale was a special player for the things he did.