PDA

View Full Version : What is O'Brien's "System"?



OakMoses
09-23-2010, 11:34 AM
Any discussion about Jim O'Brien's coaching and the current and former makeup of the Pacers roster always leads to many, many posters (myself included, I'm sure) talking about O'Brien's "system". We here comments about him being a gimmick coach, about him being stubborn and refusing to change, and about him having a "style" that he is a "true believer" in.

My question for all of us, then, is this:

What is O'Brien's system?

It's probably helpful to differentiate between offense and defense, because we often here the term applied to both sides of the court.

Once we have an idea of what the system is, another helpful question might be this:

What skillsets and abilities would O'Brien choose for players at each position?

I'm interested to hear people's opinions on this.

If at all possible, I'd like to let this thread be a tactical discussion. Let's try to keep it free of comments about O'Brien's coaching ability and about how playing time has been divvied out in the past.

Speed
09-23-2010, 11:37 AM
Offensively

From a Jim Obrien show in Dec last year, he values

-Top of the key 3

-the corner 3

-shots within 8 feet of the basket, I believe is what he said.

This is based on trending from the league as to what are sucessful shots.

Speed
09-23-2010, 11:42 AM
They run a motion set, for sure that uses the PG like a pseudo wing.

They also run a variation of what people call a Princeton type offense with back cuts, with bigs at the elbow. It's really more like what Georgetown runs, I think though.

I almost forgot, with AJ they ran a bunch of Pick and Rolls since that was his strength.

They run a low post set with shooters spreading the floor for Roy.

They run Iso's, but not often since there really wasn't a player outside of TJ and sometimes Danny who could get there own shot.

They would spread the floor with shooters in both the Iso and Low Post set, while having guys cut hard to the basket if their defender turned their heads. Also, with off the ball weak side picks, (with picks) both towards and away from the basket.

Speed
09-23-2010, 11:45 AM
The defense has changed over Obie's tenure. The personnel two years ago was so bad defensively, they played almost a hybrid zone, pushing guys baseline where a big would be completely cheating on the ball side.

Last year, I think they did this less and had more accountability individually. I'll defer on last years defense, since it just looked kinda traditional to me with reasonable help side, etc.

Triple post woohoo!! I'm just excited to talk real basketball for a change!!

Unclebuck
09-23-2010, 11:52 AM
I don't have much to add to Speed, he has it correct. (I don't think Jim is a system coach - he likes the three, but other teams and other coaches have their teams shoot more) I think he adapts the offense to fit the personnel and defense as speed has mentioned he has changed that to match the personnel.

I'm sure I'm be in the minority here.

vnzla81
09-23-2010, 11:57 AM
In offense he likes to stretch the floor and shoot quick, he likes to keep the lines open for guys to drive in(even though nobody does it) it also relies in shooting a lot of threes and moving the ball until somebody is open. Is also requires to play the old vets that according to him "give him the best chance to win"

On defense, I don't know much about his defense :blush:

pacer4ever
09-23-2010, 12:00 PM
CHUCK 3s AND NO D

Sookie
09-23-2010, 12:54 PM
Quite frankly, it looks like an adjusted (basterdized) version of Paul Ball to me. I'm not sure it's supposed to though.

I think he gives players the green light, and he wants transition baskets. I'd also say he wants to shoot the first open good shot. (Open good shot is a three or in the paint)

If that doesn't happen within four seconds, quite often it just looked like people just stood around waiting for something to happen. That's where I thought that it was the PGs responsibility to break the defense down and make a good decision. With Watson, he just dribble drived or kept the ball moving. With Price he played PnR (with TJ he turned it over..:P)

Hicks
09-23-2010, 01:02 PM
He doesn't have a system, but he does have a "checklist" of philosophies.

If he thinks a princeton offense is what will allow his current roster to meet his philosophies, then he'll run the princeton offense. Or the triangle, UCLA, flex, etc, etc, etc.

I don't think he has a favorite (or if he does, he's not a slave to using it) set with regards to X's and O's.

His priorities are:

* Take shots where the stats show you have the best chance of them going in (the paint, corner 3's, top of the key 3's)
* Take shots when the stats show you have the best chance of them going in (usually the first open look you can get, usually early in the shot clock)
* Good spacing gives the offense its best chance of succeeding
* Three point shots are of high value
* Shots in the paint are of highest value
* In the NBA, your offense must not be predictable, or else the defense will ultimately prevail

I'm not sure he's commented on this, but with regards to that last bullet, I would think Jim also believes that if you can't be unpredictable, you must be unstoppable. Being unstoppable means having great scorers who force the defense to pick their poison. I believe that was a driving force behind us drafting both Paul George and Lance Stephenson: Both have the ability to create their own scoring opportunities, and that's very valuable.

spreedom
09-23-2010, 01:04 PM
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it "Get the ball up the floor and chuck it"?

BillS
09-23-2010, 01:15 PM
CHUCK 3s AND NO D


Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it "Get the ball up the floor and chuck it"?

:picardriker:

Trophy
09-23-2010, 01:22 PM
It's not balanced.

He's definitly more of an offensive type of coach, but the problem is that some of the guys on the team aren't really know as playing well offensively and some aren't comfortable shooting open field goal shots.

Speed
09-23-2010, 01:27 PM
Here is something I've always kinda thought but wanted to ask people if it makes sense.

If you can hit 33% of 3s and 50% of 2s, thats even.

For example:

6 three pointers taken, 2 made equals 6 points.

6 two pointers taken, 3 made equals 3 points.

Sooooo, if you can shoot anything above 33% as a team from 3 point land, isn't that a better shot?

For the record, the Pacers shot .348 from 3 and .443 from 2.

How is that for oversimplification?

I'm not advocating taking only 3s, for the record.

Sookie
09-23-2010, 01:31 PM
Here is something I've always kinda thought but wanted to ask people if it makes sense.

If you can hit 33% of 3s and 50% of 2s, thats even.

For example:

6 three pointers taken, 2 made equals 6 points.

6 two pointers taken, 3 made equals 3 points.

Sooooo, if you can shoot anything above 33% as a team from 3 point land, isn't that a better shot?

For the record, the Pacers shot .348 from 3 and .443 from 2.

How is that for oversimplification?

I'm not advocating taking only 3s, for the record.

The more missed shots the more possessions the other team gets.

So you miss four shots, the other team possibly has four opportunities to score, you miss three shots, the other team possibly has three opportunities to score.

So it makes sense..but the outcome really isn't the same.

Speed
09-23-2010, 01:31 PM
More on my question on 3s

Using the Pacers numbers from last year.

For 3s:

6 possessions X .348 = 2.088 buckets = 6.264 points

For 2s:

6 possessions X .443 = 2.658 buckets = 5.316 points

Speed
09-23-2010, 01:33 PM
The more missed shots the more possessions the other team gets.

So you miss four shots, the other team possibly has four opportunities to score, you miss three shots, the other team possibly has three opportunities to score.

So it makes sense..but the outcome really isn't the same.

Well, they'll get 6 chances to score, either way. Maybe fast break chances?

Sookie
09-23-2010, 01:39 PM
Well, they'll get 6 chances to score, either way. Maybe fast break chances?

Yea, basically easier baskets, sorry about that. :P

Brad8888
09-23-2010, 01:43 PM
Attack the paint with dribble penetration from guards or wings unless there is an open three at high percentage spots on the arc to start with whether there are any rebounders in position to clean up misses or not. Failing the ability to finish, the dribble penetrator kicks to the spots on the arc that are high percentage shots statistically, which makes our offense predictable and our pgs susceptible to high turnover rates or poor shot selection. If the opponent falls asleep, there is the backcut option ala Princeton where whoever happens to be in the vicinity receives a pass and makes the layup or occasional slam. Definitely an offense that always has been "outside / in" with the perimeter players being instructed to be shot creators instead of passers who look to pass only after they determine that they don't have an opening to drive or shoot.

Defensively, the Pacers set up a perimeter around the paint as much as they can where the defense attempts to rotate and reverse rotate as needed to simultaneously protect the paint as well as the arc, and fails to have the quickness or stamina to succeed due to the available talent and health of the players involved. That leaves our single defender of the paint (whoever is on the floor at a given time as the single big for defensive purposes) to contend with both providing resistance against the low post game of most opponents, as well as a backstop for the perimeter defense when it fails to get the stop. The lack of a second big to provide weakside help is a huge problem here from a defensive standpoint.

If there was a change defensively this past season, it was the reduction of silly reach in fouls coupled with a little more respect for Roy from the officials, as well as an awkward attempt at playing a little bit more man defense with a reduction of the reliance on rotating on the perimeter due to the improved play and reliance on Rush, as well as a little better pressure from Watson and Price at the point sometimes.

pacer4ever
09-23-2010, 01:47 PM
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it "Get the ball up the floor and chuck it"?

yes sir thats JOB 4 you

Putnam
09-23-2010, 01:56 PM
His system relies heavily on speed and the presumption that his players are quicker than the other team and can run the other team off its legs. His system cannot so much be said to have failed as it has never been tried.

On offense, he wants his team to press its advantage early in the clock, but instead of that the players merely cross the timeline and then forfeit the advanage. Instead of taking a fortuitous shot they take a shot that is merely rushed.

On defense, he wants his players to push the ball towards the center, though earlier he wanted them to push toward the baseline (the change Speed mentioned above) and he wants them to switch coverage on picks and passes. But the coverage breaks down because, even if one or two guys make the proper switch somebody who's supposed to come across fails to do it.


EDIT:

Brad's preceding post reminds me. When O'Brien came, he said his philosophy was:

Attack the paint offensively,
Protect the paint defensively,
Go after every loose ball, and
Play hard for 48 minutes.


I don't think that philosophy has been very evident, but that is what he said.

Putnam
09-23-2010, 02:00 PM
The more missed shots the more possessions the other team gets.


I was under the impression that possessions evens out almost perfectly over the course of a game. One team may get 3-4 more possessions just by virtue of holding for the last shot of a quarter, but I don't think a team's choice of shot can give the other team substantially fewer or more possessions.

Brad8888
09-23-2010, 02:10 PM
I was under the impression that possessions evens out almost perfectly over the course of a game. One team may get 3-4 more possessions just by virtue of holding for the last shot of a quarter, but I don't think a team's choice of shot can give the other team substantially fewer or more possessions.

More accurately, the more missed shots that happen without quality offensive rebounding, the higher the overall likelihood of the opposition having productive possessions due to their advantage in starting their offense with fast breaks or uptempo pushing of the ball up the court while our players are out of defensive position, thereby using speed (!) to their advantage when they use it selectively, especially when shots are taken early in the clock while our players are still trying to get into the positions they are supposed to be in for our typical offense.

CableKC
09-23-2010, 02:24 PM
Okay....all of you Basketball Gurus can help answer this.....since I'm pretty clueless when it comes to this stuff.

Based off of whatever System that JO'B uses......what type of Players do you need in order to properly and effectively implement it?

Is it more of a "general" trait/skill that every one should have ( regardless of position )?

and/or

Are there specific type of Players at positions that one should have?

Off the top of my head....I know that we always use one of the Big Men at the top of the key to either pass the ball or take the shot there. This would suggest ( and you can correct me if I am wrong ) that we need a good passing Big Man with a nice mid-range game...which I think we have in Hibbert.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is if the system isn't the issue....are we any close to getting the type of Players to make the system work?

grace
09-23-2010, 02:35 PM
CHUCK 3s AND NO D


Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it "Get the ball up the floor and chuck it"?

Actually my first inclination was "Painful to watch", but these work too.

Putnam
09-23-2010, 03:17 PM
More accurately, the more missed shots that happen without quality offensive rebounding, the higher the overall likelihood of the opposition having productive possessions due to their advantage in starting their offense with fast breaks or uptempo pushing of the ball up the court while our players are out of defensive position, thereby using speed (!) to their advantage when they use it selectively, especially when shots are taken early in the clock while our players are still trying to get into the positions they are supposed to be in for our typical offense.


Yeah, I'm sure this is true. Missing at your end and losing the rebound hurts two ways. You didn't score, and the other team gets the ball back with a chance to run.

But missing at your end doesn't result in the other team getting MORE possessions, does it? That is what Sookie and Speed were back-and-forthing about, and that was all I meant to address.

Is it not correct that possessions evens out over the course of the game, with both teams having within 2-3 of the same number regardless of the score? One team might have substantially more field goal attempts if it gets several steals and/or dominates in offensive rebounds. But it is impossible to have many more possessions than your opponent.

Sookie
09-23-2010, 04:02 PM
I was under the impression that possessions evens out almost perfectly over the course of a game. One team may get 3-4 more possessions just by virtue of holding for the last shot of a quarter, but I don't think a team's choice of shot can give the other team substantially fewer or more possessions.

Yea, ignore me, very over tired. I meant more "easy" shots..as it's obviously easier to run off of a rebound.

HeliumFear
09-23-2010, 04:29 PM
My take on the Pacers offense:

Play at a very very fast pace.

Ball movement is a team responsibility and it is done through passing. (there is no ball domination like you would see from a Wade or LeBron or CP3)

Positions 1-4 ideally shoot the 3.

I feel like the offense is focused on working outside-in. Very backwards.

BillS
09-23-2010, 06:27 PM
I feel like the offense is focused on working outside-in. Very backwards.

I think we seldom had anyone on the floor who could make the entry pass to the inside, particularly when the defenses were able to just collapse on the passing lanes and dare us to shoot jumpers.

I think we have a PG who has some ability to make the pass in difficult circumstances. It will be interesting to see if:

1) Outside shots fall so the defenses have to cover more of the floor, and
2) Entry passes can be made into the middle either through coverage or due to the above.

O'Bird
09-23-2010, 08:17 PM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sookie
The more missed shots the more possessions the other team gets.

So you miss four shots, the other team possibly has four opportunities to score, you miss three shots, the other team possibly has three opportunities to score."

So it makes sense..but the outcome really isn't the same."


Well, they'll get 6 chances to score, either way. Maybe fast break chances?

Nowadays, "possessions" are usually reckoned the same for both teams. In any case, as Speed points out, it's the same number of scoring chances for the opponent either way. The Pacers were very good defending the rim, by the way.

Furthermore, if you take six threes and make two, you have four chances at an offensive rebound, while if you take six twos and make three, you only have three chances, though you get the same point total - and on top of that the offense has a slightly better chance to get the ball off the board on a three.

I'm not advocating shooting only threes; let's just get the mythology out of the way.

________

O'Bird
09-23-2010, 08:30 PM
I feel like the offense is focused on working outside-in. Very backwards.

No, but it's not inside-out either. They really are serious when they say that they want to use threes to spread the floor.

It'll be very interesting to see them run a whole lot of offense through Roy, as they plan to do this season, out of the high post. You couldn't productively play Watson or especially Ford off the ball, but Collison cutting or spotting up is a role that you'll likely see a lot of, because he is beautifully suited for that. Hansbrough and others flashing into the lane to get a special delivery from "Santa Claus" Hibbert is also something we'll see this Christmas.

_______

Hicks
09-23-2010, 09:22 PM
The opponent gets the same number of scoring opportunities whether you shoot a 2 or a 3, but the concern is that you'll be missing more 3's, which means you'll have more instances where your opponent can gain "unanswered" points on you to cut into your lead or boost their own.

Sure, with the extra point of the three ball, that probably balances out statistically, but I don't think it gives enough consideration to in-game momentum; the human component. Basketball is a game of runs, and if you miss too many shots in the same cluster of possessions, that gives your opponent a good chance at making one on you that they otherwise might not have had.

So maybe the lesson there is to never take too many 3's in rapid succession of one another and to try to space them out relatively evenly throughout the game.

O'Bird
09-24-2010, 01:13 AM
Sure, with the extra point of the three ball, that probably balances out statistically, but I don't think it gives enough consideration to in-game momentum; the human component. Basketball is a game of runs, and if you miss too many shots in the same cluster of possessions, that gives your opponent a good chance at making one on you that they otherwise might not have had.

I see where you're going with this, and it's a fascinating subject because it's about where the human component, as you put it, meets performance.

The question, though, is whether or not that actually happens - so at this point I don't hear anything beyond an interesting speculation.

Then, too, it may have everything to do with who your players are; does your D drop down when you've missed a few shots? Discouragement, or something.

On the other hand, it's an old NBA practice to go at a guy on offense immediately after he's made a shot on the other end, because players (or, at any rate, many players) celebrate, relax, rest on their laurels after they do something good. I think that the psychological term is "glee", like a guy who's so in love that he's useless at work. You see veteran players often after making a basket talking, frowning, and pointing at an assignment as they run back - as though to talk themselves and their teammates out of premature celebration.

Okay, it's an interesting idea. Now persuade me.

_________

BillS
09-24-2010, 09:56 AM
I'd also maintain that, at least anecdotally, it is harder to get an offensive rebound on a 3 than on a 2. If nothing else because of the percentage of 2's taken around the rim where there are more players.

There were a couple of teams last year that I thought were scarily better at pulling in rebounds on 3s. It might be that if you are going to be an outside jumper team you want your players to work on anticipating where a miss will go.

Speed
09-24-2010, 10:06 AM
I'd also maintain that, at least anecdotally, it is harder to get an offensive rebound on a 3 than on a 2. If nothing else because of the percentage of 2's taken around the rim where there are more players.

There were a couple of teams last year that I thought were scarily better at pulling in rebounds on 3s. It might be that if you are going to be an outside jumper team you want your players to work on anticipating where a miss will go.

I've heard both, that the offense has the advantage on long rebounds, since the defense should have the inside position and the ball goes over their head.

Other thing is I've heard of the long rebound referred to an outlet pass to start the fast break going the other way.

Not sure which I think, really.

Brad8888
09-24-2010, 10:35 AM
I see where you're going with this, and it's a fascinating subject because it's about where the human component, as you put it, meets performance.

The question, though, is whether or not that actually happens - so at this point I don't hear anything beyond an interesting speculation.

Then, too, it may have everything to do with who your players are; does your D drop down when you've missed a few shots? Discouragement, or something.

On the other hand, it's an old NBA practice to go at a guy on offense immediately after he's made a shot on the other end, because players (or, at any rate, many players) celebrate, relax, rest on their laurels after they do something good. I think that the psychological term is "glee", like a guy who's so in love that he's useless at work. You see veteran players often after making a basket talking, frowning, and pointing at an assignment as they run back - as though to talk themselves and their teammates out of premature celebration.

Okay, it's an interesting idea. Now persuade me.

_________

For many followers of basketball and the most successful coaches, the management of momentum during games is key to the ultimate success of any team.

In the NBA, where all players are at the very least professional basketball players, whether elite players or not, the vast majority of games are played between teams that are more or less equal if the talents and efforts of the players are both being maximized. The team that manages momentum through timely substitutions and timeouts that recognize and properly react to both player and team momentum from a performance and energy standpoint should increase its likelihood of winning a given game.

This concept of momentum does not simply apply to one's own team, either. Stoppage of play at the possible onset of runs when an opponent has begun to gain momentum can be an effective tool in maintaining a comfortable lead or to stop the opposition from blowing a game wide open.

Coaches like Brown, Carlisle, SVG, Phil Jackson, Popovich, etc. utilize momentum change opportunities quite judiciously and have increased their levels of coaching success as a result. The Pacers are currently weak with respect to this aspect of coaching in my opinion, to the level that when momentum changing timeouts / substitutions have been used in a timely fashion that I have been known to comment something to the effect of "Wow. The Pacers must actually plan on winning this game."

But, then again, I have never subscribed to the theory that timeouts give the opposition the chance to counter any adjustments made, thereby negating any possible advantage. Actually, I think that the counter adjustments that are made often create a situation that contributes further to eliminating the momentum advantage that a team might have had without a stoppage of play.

I guess what it really boils down to is that I don't really like the entire Pitino basketball viewpoint, do I? Hence why we are nearly always on opposite sides of the aisle. ;)

Shade
09-24-2010, 10:41 AM
CT3

See also: Davis, Mike

Shade
09-24-2010, 10:43 AM
Seriously though, Speed pretty much nailed it.

Jim's major weakness, by far, is his inability to adapt on the fly. It often takes him weeks to implement changes that an NBA head coach should be able to recognize after a couple of games, at the most. I honestly don't know whether that is due to stubbornness or lack of comprehension, though. I try to give him credit and assume stubbornness, but that just makes me even more annoyed when he doesn't adapt to things efficiently.

vnzla81
09-24-2010, 10:45 AM
Seriously though, Speed pretty much nailed it.

Jim's major weakness, by far, is his inability to adapt on the fly. It often takes him weeks to implement changes that an NBA head coach should be able to recognize after a couple of games, at the most.

I wish it was weeks, IMO it has taking him years

O'Bird
09-24-2010, 11:04 AM
I'd also maintain that, at least anecdotally, it is harder to get an offensive rebound on a 3 than on a 2. If nothing else because of the percentage of 2's taken around the rim where there are more players.

The indispensable cordobes actually found stats on these things, which I think you can locate in the "Hungry Hungry Hibbert" thread (that one obviously went off into some territory that pianoman didn't intend when he posted it), if you're willing to sift through all those posts, many of them the length of short stories. Me, I'm going to get something done in my young life today.

You have to distinguish between different kinds of twos. Midrange jumpers get the fewest offensive rebounds, followed by threes and close shots. I'm going to guess that on a three the defense being spread out (with possibly a big drawn away from the hole), there's more space for a quick offensive player to get to the ball (Rondo is a master at this, despite his stature); I'm also assuming that rebounds are longer on your average three and often get into the zone outside the bigs that are fighting for position under the basket.

This is another situation where it depends on what the definition of "is" is, or to put it another way, YMMV. Do you have guys who can take advantage and get those (long?) rebounds? For the Pacers, great question.

Around the basket, the defense has its biggest advantage for the board (again, your mileage may vary) because they're forming a cordon around the hoop.


There were a couple of teams last year that I thought were scarily better at pulling in rebounds on 3s. It might be that if you are going to be an outside jumper team you want your players to work on anticipating where a miss will go.

That's very interesting - what teams were those?

As for working on that kind of anticipation, good luck. However, it does seem to be the case that, for instance, corner threes tend to rebound into the opposite baseline area - makes sense.


I've heard both, that the offense has the advantage on long rebounds, since the defense should have the inside position and the ball goes over their head.

That might account for the better offensive rebound rate on threes compared to midrange jumpers.


Other thing is I've heard of the long rebound referred to an outlet pass to start the fast break going the other way.

This is the old Bill Walton claim, which John Hollinger thinks that he's debunked. I don't remember John's reasoning, though I do remember being a little skeptical at the time. I guess, bottom line, I'd need to see some proof one way or the other on this one.

In any case, the difference between an average team's ability to offensively rebound a three versus a two (even if you're differentiating between midrange and close twos) is a lot smaller than the average team's ability to get an offensive rebound on three missed shots versus two.

_____________

Hicks
09-24-2010, 12:28 PM
I see where you're going with this, and it's a fascinating subject because it's about where the human component, as you put it, meets performance.

The question, though, is whether or not that actually happens - so at this point I don't hear anything beyond an interesting speculation.

Then, too, it may have everything to do with who your players are; does your D drop down when you've missed a few shots? Discouragement, or something.

On the other hand, it's an old NBA practice to go at a guy on offense immediately after he's made a shot on the other end, because players (or, at any rate, many players) celebrate, relax, rest on their laurels after they do something good. I think that the psychological term is "glee", like a guy who's so in love that he's useless at work. You see veteran players often after making a basket talking, frowning, and pointing at an assignment as they run back - as though to talk themselves and their teammates out of premature celebration.

Okay, it's an interesting idea. Now persuade me.

I'm not going to try to persuade you. I never said it was a fact, I said it was a concern.

Hicks
09-24-2010, 12:32 PM
I've heard both, that the offense has the advantage on long rebounds, since the defense should have the inside position and the ball goes over their head.

Other thing is I've heard of the long rebound referred to an outlet pass to start the fast break going the other way.

Not sure which I think, really.

I think it can be both. It just depends on the situation. If the defense is collapsed inside while the offense is mostly or all along the perimeter, the offense is probably going to have a better chance at grabbing the long rebound.

In other circumstances, that advantage may not be there, and if there's a couple of defensive players near the top of the key, one of them could grab it, start going, while the other sprints ahead and could receive the outlet pass.

FlavaDave
09-24-2010, 01:21 PM
Don't forget - 2pt attempts lead to "and-1s" and trips to the line which don't show up in the standard measurement of FG%. 3pt attempts almost never lead to free throw attempts. You basically need to add FT% to 2pt% to get an accurate view of points per 2pt attempt.

So, a crude example using Danny's stats from last year:

Danny averaged 11.3 2pt shots per game, making 5.3 (which generated 10.6 points). He also made 5.9 free throws a game (generating 5.9 points). Assuming none of those FTs were a product of a 3pt attempt, each 2pt attempt generated 1.46 points.

Danny averaged 7.1 3pt attempts, making 2.6 of them. This generated 1.09 points per attempt.

Now, Granger shot 36.1% from 3 and 46.9% from 2, so he shot higher than 33% and lower than 50%. And still, its obvious that the 2pt was much more efficient.

Now, the stats will change depending on a particular player's ability to drive to the hoop and draw contact of course. Basically, the point is: don't forget about free throws.

count55
09-24-2010, 01:53 PM
The invaluable numbers that cordobes provided are from 82games.

http://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm

I'll quote the obviously relevant passages, but you should read the whole thing to get comfortable with what it's saying (and, as is frustratingly typical with 82games, they provide fantastic analysis, but don't give you (me) enough detail - like sample size - to set the materiality of it).


So no shock here, but the "in the paint" shots lead to more contested rebounds, and the highest offensive rebound rate, with three-pointers being close, but those pesky two-point jumpers from outside, which we've picked on in other articles, are once again the least effective for the offensive team in terms of producing second chances!

and


So yes, the three point shots produce more medium and long rebounds, especially from the wings and straightaway. More importantly there's strong evidence that long range missed shots tend to go beyond the basket, so a left side three point shot ends up in a right side zone and vice versa.

The charts aren't the clearest things in the world. The break the situations down into 5 categories - Uncontested Offensive rebound, Advantage Offense (at least one more offensive player in the area where the ball "landed", Evenly Contested, Advantage Defense (at least one more def player), and Uncontested Defensive Rebounds.

The sample says that the offense rebounded 37.8% of misses from the paint, 31.3% of the misses from three-point range, but only 23.9% of the misses shot from the "mid-range." Additionally, it says that the % of opportunities where the offensive team had the advantage was about the same (18%) for both Threes and "In the Paint" misses, but only 14% from the mid-range. (Defensive advantages go from 50% "in the Paint" to 53% from Three to 61% on the "Mid Range."

The important thing to remember is that neither O'Brien, nor anyone else who agrees with the general philosophy outlined in Hicks' outstanding synopsis:


He doesn't have a system, but he does have a "checklist" of philosophies.

If he thinks a princeton offense is what will allow his current roster to meet his philosophies, then he'll run the princeton offense. Or the triangle, UCLA, flex, etc, etc, etc.

I don't think he has a favorite (or if he does, he's not a slave to using it) set with regards to X's and O's.

His priorities are:

* Take shots where the stats show you have the best chance of them going in (the paint, corner 3's, top of the key 3's)
* Take shots when the stats show you have the best chance of them going in (usually the first open look you can get, usually early in the shot clock)
* Good spacing gives the offense its best chance of succeeding
* Three point shots are of high value
* Shots in the paint are of highest value
* In the NBA, your offense must not be predictable, or else the defense will ultimately prevail

I'm not sure he's commented on this, but with regards to that last bullet, I would think Jim also believes that if you can't be unpredictable, you must be unstoppable. Being unstoppable means having great scorers who force the defense to pick their poison. I believe that was a driving force behind us drafting both Paul George and Lance Stephenson: Both have the ability to create their own scoring opportunities, and that's very valuable.

want to forgo shots at the rim in favor of threes. They want to forgo (perhaps even avoid) mid range shots. In 2007, Carlisle's Pacers took 50.5% of their shots from the mid range. Under O'Brien, those have dropped to 45.6%.

Since86
09-24-2010, 02:44 PM
And if you took UB's advice and not listened to JOb you wouldn't have heard that he thinks the midrange shot is the worst shot in basketbal.

BillS
09-24-2010, 02:54 PM
That's very interesting - what teams were those?

As for working on that kind of anticipation, good luck. However, it does seem to be the case that, for instance, corner threes tend to rebound into the opposite baseline area - makes sense.

I've slept since then :), so I don't remember the specific games, though I suspect Boston (Rondo) is one of them. I just remember coming away from some games being really unhappy that we couldn't rebound our missed threes as well as the other team did.

I'll pay more attention to detail this year if I see it again.


In 2007, Carlisle's Pacers took 505% of their shots from the mid range. Under O'Brien, those have dropped to 45.6%.

Wow. 505%. You'd think Carlisle would have more balance in his offense. :zip:

count55
09-24-2010, 03:09 PM
Wow. 505%. You'd think Carlisle would have more balance in his offense. :zip:

Oddly, that corresponds with the percentage of times down the court Carlisle flagged down the point guard and called out a play.

:p

count55
09-24-2010, 04:18 PM
Don't forget - 2pt attempts lead to "and-1s" and trips to the line which don't show up in the standard measurement of FG%. 3pt attempts almost never lead to free throw attempts. You basically need to add FT% to 2pt% to get an accurate view of points per 2pt attempt.

So, a crude example using Danny's stats from last year:

Danny averaged 11.3 2pt shots per game, making 5.3 (which generated 10.6 points). He also made 5.9 free throws a game (generating 5.9 points). Assuming none of those FTs were a product of a 3pt attempt, each 2pt attempt generated 1.46 points.

Danny averaged 7.1 3pt attempts, making 2.6 of them. This generated 1.09 points per attempt.

Now, Granger shot 36.1% from 3 and 46.9% from 2, so he shot higher than 33% and lower than 50%. And still, its obvious that the 2pt was much more efficient.

Now, the stats will change depending on a particular player's ability to drive to the hoop and draw contact of course. Basically, the point is: don't forget about free throws.

The inclusion of FT's in this discussion is crucial, but I disagree with your conclusion, seemingly based on the general assumption that all FT's generated by plays inside the arc are unrelated to the 3-point shot.

Last season, there were something like 51,000 fouls committed, and about 26,000 of them were shooting fouls. Of these shooting fouls, there were about 5,900 And-1's. There were 369 fouls committed on three point shots, excluding 4-point plays (of which there couldn't have been more than a handful.

So, yes, the chances of being fouled while shooting a three are infinitesimal when compared to the chances of being foul shooting a two. However, fouls are created by being closer to the basket. They're created by moving, generally closer to the basket.

This is at the core of the creation of the three - it was added to incent the offense to spread out, and to force the defense to have to go out and get them. On a smaller scale, it's the basketball equivalent of the forward pass. The threat of it opens the floor.

The debate in football: "Do you run to set up the pass, or pass to set up the run?" is analagous to the inside-out vs. outside-in discussion in basketball. You can't answer either question unless you know what it is that you do better. It's fair to say that given a choice, you'd want to run first, and correspondingly, go inside-out first, but your choice is ultimately dictated by the talents of your roster.

Bringing it back to your post, Danny is not a good player to choose to make your point.

Of the 242 players who averaged 20 or more minutes last season, Danny's 3PA as a percent of FGA's was higher than three quarters of them. However, so were his FTA's as a percent of FGA's.

Danny has no post game to speak of, and he has neither the handles nor the moves to Iso or break people's ankles. His entire offensive game is predicated on his shot, and his FTA/FGA has gone up as his 3PA/FGA has. (He went too far last year, but it's difficult to tell how much that had to do with his injury.) The fact that he can hit the three at a high percentage, and that he's willing to take them, puts his defender at a disadvantage, and has a sizable impact on his ability to draw fouls and get to the line.

Consider this - Roy Hibbert took 71% of his shots from inside 10 feet. Danny took 32% of his shots inside 10 feet. Roy's FTA/FGA was 28.6%, while Danny's was 37.6%.

Taking a lot of threes and shooting a lot of free throws are not mutually exclusive. Orlando shot a much higher percentage of their shots from beyond the arc than the Pacers did (35% vs. 28%) - highest in the league, Pacers 3rd - but they also had a higher FTA/FGA (34% vs. 30%). They were fourth in the league on that, while the Pacers were 15th.

That doesn't stand as a rule (NYK was 2nd 3PA/FGA, but 28th in FTA/FGA), but it doesn't have to. You can use the three as one of your key weapons and still put pressure on the defense and create fouls. The correlation across the league is effectively zero, which you could take to mean that it neither helps you or hurts you get to the line, or that it's capable of alternately really helping you or really hurting you.

What you cannot say is that shooting a lot of threes definitely costs you FTA's - at least not when measured against the rest of the league.


(Side Note - Danny was fouled on 3pters 12 times last season, not counting 4pt plays, which I can't find. Only Durant (25) had more. Billups had 11, and Brandon Roy had 10.)

(Another Side Note -

Roy Hibbert is the single most important Pacer in the system O'Brien wants to run.

O'Brien knows this.

Yes, O'Brien will continue to push the pace, but that will only make Roy (or really, any reliable post presence) that much more important. The most aggressive team in the league will only get one out of every 5 shots out of transition. The Pacers will get one out of every 6 shots out of transition. That leaves a whole lot of shots to come out of the half court, and Roy will need to be the focal point of that.)

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 04:39 PM
I was going to make a serious post about how the 2FGA/3FGA math on the first page is flawed because it ignores the and-one opportunities (and shooting fouls on missed shots that result in 2 FTs don't show up as a FGA at all), but Count's hilarious Rick Carlisle post has completely derailed my train of thought. And FlavaDave summed it up pretty well in his post, anyway.

Hicks
09-24-2010, 11:55 PM
I largely see your point, but this:



Taking a lot of threes and shooting a lot of free throws are not mutually exclusive. Orlando shot a much higher percentage of their shots from beyond the arc than the Pacers did (35% vs. 28%) - highest in the league, Pacers 3rd - but they also had a higher FTA/FGA (34% vs. 30%). They were fourth in the league on that, while the Pacers were 15th.

Needs a 6'11" 265 pound asterisk next to it. Dwight Howard has to play an enormous role in Orlando having a high FTA/FGA. I would imagine if the Pacers had him, their FTA/FGA would leap upwards as well.

So, sure, if you've got a foul-magnet like Dwight Howard you can have your cake and eat it too, but can you when you don't have a guy like him?

O'Bird
09-25-2010, 02:11 AM
Don't forget - 2pt attempts lead to "and-1s" and trips to the line which don't show up in the standard measurement of FG%. 3pt attempts almost never lead to free throw attempts. You basically need to add FT% to 2pt% to get an accurate view of points per 2pt attempt.

Aha. Now we're getting into something more interesting. Your point is very well taken. I have no quibble at all with your reasoning - I agree completely; I just think that we need to add some more distinctions to it.

Firstly, not all twos are created equal, as far as drawing fouls is concerned. Fouling the jump shooter, that faux pas that drives coaches nuts, is also "not done" on short midrange, is also "not done" on long midrange twos. What does get you FT attempts is dribble drives and cutters flashing in the lane to take a pass and post-ups (and not even all post-ups) and all the things, in other words, that get the ball or risk getting the ball to the front of the rim.

Secondly, to get those shots you need somehow to create driving lanes, get player movement, and get the ball into the post if you've got someone who can do it (fancy that). Ball movement is essential (Chuck Daly: "Defense can't guard two things in succession.") for all of those.

Thirdly, you've got to unpack the paint, and that's where the first distinction comes into play; NBA defenders are good at avoiding fouling jump shooters, whether they're shooting twos or threes, and the difficulty of defending shots outside of 18 feet is reduced because of the drop in accuracy. The wild card in the pack is that even though accuracy drops further as you get to the arc, you get the extra point, which makes it efficient to shoot it at a lower percentage, and even to shoot it a lot. But if it's all you do, if your guys just hang out at the arc, you're screwed - as FlavaDave is explaining. If youíre coupling that with attacking the rim, then the defense not only has a long way to go to close out, but a long way to recover as well.

It's not inside-outside; it's not outside-inside, it's pick your poison.

So how'd the Pacers do last season? In fact, drawing fouls and going to the line was the most effective part of their offense. That will still surprise a lot of people, some of whom were comparing the Pacers' total FT attempts to their opponents'.

Nevertheless, itís true: the key statistic to look at is FT makes per FG attempt. That filters turnovers and field goal accuracy out of how much the team got out of a possession - in other words: when they had scoring opportunities, how much was drawing fouls, and how much was shooting the ball?

The Pacers were 14th in the NBA (.229), barely in the top half. Thatís the best thing that the Pacers - who were turnover-prone, poor at shooting, and bad at offensive rebounding - did on offense, and the only thing at which they were above average of the four main factors.

Looking ahead: as encouraging as the foul-drawing numbers were last year, itís a good bet that theyíll improve next, given the new personnel.


Now, the stats will change depending on a particular player's ability to drive to the hoop and draw contact of course. Basically, the point is: don't forget about free throws.

I promise!

_________

Brad8888
09-25-2010, 12:50 PM
Aha. Now we're getting into something more interesting. Your point is very well taken. I have no quibble at all with your reasoning - I agree completely; I just think that we need to add some more distinctions to it.

Firstly, not all twos are created equal, as far as drawing fouls is concerned. Fouling the jump shooter, that faux pas that drives coaches nuts, is also "not done" on short midrange, is also "not done" on long midrange twos. What does get you FT attempts is dribble drives and cutters flashing in the lane to take a pass and post-ups (and not even all post-ups) and all the things, in other words, that get the ball or risk getting the ball to the front of the rim.

Secondly, to get those shots you need somehow to create driving lanes, get player movement, and get the ball into the post if you've got someone who can do it (fancy that). Ball movement is essential (Chuck Daly: "Defense can't guard two things in succession.") for all of those.

Thirdly, you've got to unpack the paint, and that's where the first distinction comes into play; NBA defenders are good at avoiding fouling jump shooters, whether they're shooting twos or threes, and the difficulty of defending shots outside of 18 feet is reduced because of the drop in accuracy. The wild card in the pack is that even though accuracy drops further as you get to the arc, you get the extra point, which makes it efficient to shoot it at a lower percentage, and even to shoot it a lot. But if it's all you do, if your guys just hang out at the arc, you're screwed - as FlavaDave is explaining. If youíre coupling that with attacking the rim, then the defense not only has a long way to go to close out, but a long way to recover as well.

It's not inside-outside; it's not outside-inside, it's pick your poison.

So how'd the Pacers do last season? In fact, drawing fouls and going to the line was the most effective part of their offense. That will still surprise a lot of people, some of whom were comparing the Pacers' total FT attempts to their opponents'.

Nevertheless, itís true: the key statistic to look at is FT makes per FG attempt. That filters turnovers and field goal accuracy out of how much the team got out of a possession - in other words: when they had scoring opportunities, how much was drawing fouls, and how much was shooting the ball?

The Pacers were 14th in the NBA (.229), barely in the top half. Thatís the best thing that the Pacers - who were turnover-prone, poor at shooting, and bad at offensive rebounding - did on offense, and the only thing at which they were above average of the four main factors.

Looking ahead: as encouraging as the foul-drawing numbers were last year, itís a good bet that theyíll improve next, given the new personnel.



I promise!

_________

Aha. Now we begin to understand the lack of ability to more consistently seal the perimeter, leaving Roy or other interior defenders to clean up the messes of the perimeter defenders and vulnerable to foul trouble...

In an effort not to foul the midrange shooting that is employed by other teams, the defense must be receiving instructions to bend but not break with respect to keeping opposing players from attacking the paint, but only without being so agressive as to foul them when they are in prime shooting positions. Teams with true passing games likely exploit this by passing to the midrange, leaving our guys to either attempt to recover, or our interior guys to come out a few extra feet. That leaves our guys needing to not only cover two, but often three things in succession due to rotations and weakside helps often not preanticipating what the opposition will do, which is about the only hope we have to stop teams from taking advantage of our defensive system in that reads of the offense are frequently taking too long to allow players to accurately react given the space they are required to cover in the team concept. Chuck Daly would not be pleased, I'm afraid.

I long for the days of the early 2000's...Less team defense (or much better execution of it on the perimeter), more man-to-man and ball defense that can at least sometimes lock down the opposition now that we have more players who are better able to play athletic defense and a healthier roster overall, please...

Unfortunately, practicing defense against our own offensive strategy is only effective against teams that employ a similar strategy, and may have lead to improper reads on the part of our players during games. Teams that are flexible in their game planning from an offensive standpoint and who have the ability to use a passing game to the spots the Pacers choose not to fully defend can overcome what the Pacers apparently do because, once again, no one can run as fast as a ball can be delivered with a crisply thrown succession of passes that lead to our players frequently being required to cover multiple attacks in succession.

As to the FT discrepancy, yes FT's often determine the outcome of basketball games at every level, and the Pacers need to improve on that aspect of the offense by trying to actually outscore their opponents at the line more frequently. Also, an early advantage at the line can change the momentum (!) of the game and force a more adaptable team to change strategies during the course of a given game to counter that advantage. A passing based strategy that catches teams off balance and passes that lead to higher quality drives can be very effective at creating and-1 situations that have a higher likelihood of the initial shot going in, as well as creating more likelihood of getting fouls on the core of the opponents rim defenders who are often key components of their team's success on both ends of the court. That would greatly improve the offensive efficiency of both the players and the team as a whole, leading to the ultimate trump card of all statistics...more W's.

More passing and crisp ball reversals overall to set up better driving lanes and break down the opposing defense, leading to both higher quality finishes and more FT's as well as better spacing of the court (!), please...

We, as fans, look forward to the Pacers keeping their "Promise" protected this year, and these things would further assist those efforts, I promise...

Ryan
09-26-2010, 07:25 AM
How is he still coaching this team? Real talk.

pacer4ever
09-26-2010, 06:03 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/


HE TALKS ABOUT IT LOL JOB LOL

count55
09-27-2010, 07:46 AM
I largely see your point, but this:



Needs a 6'11" 265 pound asterisk next to it. Dwight Howard has to play an enormous role in Orlando having a high FTA/FGA. I would imagine if the Pacers had him, their FTA/FGA would leap upwards as well.

So, sure, if you've got a foul-magnet like Dwight Howard you can have your cake and eat it too, but can you when you don't have a guy like him?

Fair point.

McKeyFan
09-27-2010, 01:46 PM
I think sometime a few months ago Jay explained pretty nicely how the best teams and championship teams don't rely as much on the three—San Antonio, the former Pistons, etc.

I think maybe the defense plays cat and mouse with us throughout the game and then clamps down in the fourth quarter. At that point, we can't beat them with threes and our post game isn't good enough to get it done—in part because we don't emphasize it.

If you want to call that the "human element" or "motivation/momentum" that's fine. It would be interesting to see the many stats in this thread dealing with 3's vs. 2's adjusted to fourth quarter only, or even the second part of the fourth quarter.

I have an interesting analogy for those who play golf. In a scramble format, where both players (or all four in a foursome) hit a drive, you get to choose the best drive of the four. So, usually—especially if a guy has already hit one in the fairway—the other guys try to just kill the ball to perhaps get a longer drive for the foursome.

But a thoughtful golfer pointed out to me that what ends up happening is that the golfers get out of rythm. Since their taking these gigantic swings, when the approach shot comes, or your the last guy driving that nobody has hit the fairway and you just need a solid straight shot, a guy can't do it because he's been trying to clobber the ball all day with this crazy swing.

Back to basketball. I feel like we shoot all these threes all game long, and it works pretty well for three quarters and its fun and exciting. Then the game grinds down, we have to start working for a decent shot in the paint, and we just don't do it very well because it's not our normal pattern, our grooved routine swing, that we practice over and over again.

McKeyFan
09-27-2010, 01:58 PM
Regarding Jim O'Stubborn's overall philosophy, I didn't mind him the first year. Things went okay and Granger and Dunleavy were fun to watch.

The second year he started to irritate me a bit. Clearly, we needed better defense. But the thing that first started to annoy was his absolute refusal to call appropriate timouts. Jim O'Stubborn went months before giving in and calling a timeout after, say, the opponent went on a 15 point run.

To his credit (not eventually to his credit) he said at the end of that season that he needed defensive players. I was cool with giving him a chance to make things work. But then he ignored his new defensive players, ignored the success of the five game win streak, and gave Murphy a zillion minutes. That's when he completely lost me.

It wasn't that he likes the three. It's that he gave it priority over the fundamentals, i.e. good defense. It wouldn't have been as bad if he hadn't talked a big game about defense the previous season. That just made it more frustrating.

Despite the obvious, Jim O' Stubborn sticks to his preconceived notions, despite the overwhelming evidence and despite what he has said in the past, unless absolutely forced to do otherwise.

This season may be more tolerable because he has been absolutely forced to play without Troy Murphy.

daschysta
09-27-2010, 02:36 PM
The pacers actually WERE substantially better defensively last year, we were exactly average in fact. The problem is that the offensive efficiency fell off the face of the earth.

Speed
09-27-2010, 02:54 PM
DC2 was asked at media day:
Rank these as to your offensive strengths: Transition, Motion, Pick and Roll, one on one.


He replied:

Darren:
1. Transition, 2. Pick and roll, 3. One on one, 4. Motion

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

Coach Obrien was asked:
Will you adjust the offense and/or defense design to match your personnel for this year, if so, what kinds of adjustments do you anticipate?


He replied:

We adjust our offense every year based on our personnel. As an example, Roy Hibbert has had such a great summer, that I believe much of our offense will be run through him to take advantage of his low post game and also his ability to pass and shoot facing the basket from 17ft. Defensively, we will pretty much play the same type of defense with the emphasis of protecting our basket and making it difficult for people to get clear looks from the perimeter.

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



So I'm good with Roy be an offensive focal point, but we need to see DC2s skills accentuated as well. I guess we'll see.

cordobes
10-05-2010, 08:02 PM
I largely see your point, but this:

Needs a 6'11" 265 pound asterisk next to it. Dwight Howard has to play an enormous role in Orlando having a high FTA/FGA. I would imagine if the Pacers had him, their FTA/FGA would leap upwards as well.

So, sure, if you've got a foul-magnet like Dwight Howard you can have your cake and eat it too, but can you when you don't have a guy like him?

The Celtics in 01 lead the league in 3PA and were 5th in FT/FGA. I'm sure you can find similar stuff with other teams (Larry Brown teams with Iverson, for example).

Of course, Paul Pierce played a big role in that... but you always need players who are capable of drawing fouls to have a hight FT/FGA ratio. It's like that for every team, regardless of their 3pt shot propensity.