PDA

View Full Version : Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast



Hicks
09-27-2010, 01:01 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp10/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PacersForecast1011

John Hollinger
ESPN.com



2009-10 recap
It was a case of the cure being as bad as the disease. The Pacers labored through the 2009 offseason to make themselves a better defensive team, and on that level their season was a success -- Indy moved up from 19th to 15th in defensive efficiency despite several injuries to key defenders in the frontcourt.

Offensively, however, they tanked, and the two phenomena were related. In free agency, Indiana had invested in defenders with limited offensive games, such as Earl Watson and Dahntay Jones, and drafted Tyler Hansbrough to shore up the frontcourt rather than nabbing one of the several productive point guards from last season's rookie class.

HOLLINGER'S '09-10 STATS
W-L: 32-50 (Pythagorean W-L: 31-51)
Offensive efficiency: 101.3 (26th)
Defensive efficiency: 104.2 (15th)
Pace factor: 99.4 (2nd)
Highest PER: Danny Granger (19.85)

Things might have worked out better if Danny Granger hadn't missed 20 games, or if T.J. Ford hadn't gone off the rails (again), or if Mike Dunleavy had made a more robust comeback from his knee troubles. But none of those things happened, and the net result was a Pacers offense in shambles.

Indiana plummeted to 26th in offensive efficiency after finishing in the middle of the pack a year earlier, a performance that directly led the Pacers to once again fall just shy of the playoffs. That continues a frustrating trend of near misses: In the past three seasons they've finished ninth, ninth, and 10th in the Eastern Conference.

Despite their scoring woes, the Pacers played very fast. In fact, they operated as a mini-Golden State in several respects, finishing either second from the top or second from the bottom in several categories in which the Warriors represented the extreme.

Most obviously, the Pacers played the league's second-fastest pace, which isn't necessarily what you'd expect from a team that started plodders Roy Hibbert and Troy Murphy in the frontcourt.

Considering the production of that duo, another unexpected issue was the Pacers' lousy performance on the offensive glass. Golden State was the league's worst offensive rebounding team, but the Pacers pushed them for the honor, grabbing only 21.6 percent of their misses.

Off. Rebound Rate: 2009-10's Worst
Team Off. reb. rate
Golden State 20.9
Indiana 21.6
Boston 22.8
New York 23.5
Dallas 24.3
NBA average 26.3
There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent).

The Pacers' other problem was a shot distribution that was far too democratic given the limited number of talented offensive players. Granger led the team in usage rate, as one would expect, but how could Jones and Luther Head have more touches per minute than Murphy? The sharing spirit extended everywhere except to puzzling second-year pro Brandon Rush, who finished last in usage rate despite appearing more skilled than several of his more assertive teammates. Somehow he led the team in minutes despite a 9.61 player efficiency rating.

There was good news if you looked hard enough for it -- Hibbert emerged as a solid post scorer, and second-round pick A.J. Price looks like a keeper -- but in the big picture, Indy's offensive performance was a crushing disappointment.

At the other end, the Pacers generated the league's fifth-best defense against 2-point field goals (47.6 percent), but that was the only thing they did well. In particular, they fouled with abandon. Indiana's .341 opponent free throw attempts per field goal attempt ranked 27th. (Golden State was 26th, natch.) All the frontcourt players except Murphy had monumental foul rates, with Hibbert's high rate being particularly vexing because it often took his scoring off the floor. On the perimeter, Jones also fouled far too often, leading to his ceding the defensive stopper role to Rush.

Indiana's other big weakness was defensive rebounding. Although the Pacers weren't as bad as they were on the offensive glass, they ranked only 22nd at 73 percent. Combined with the poor offensive rebounding numbers, Indiana's 47.1 rebound rate ranked 29th in the NBA. Only Golden State, of course, was worse.

This makes the offseason trade of Murphy a particular concern. He led the team in defensive rebound rate by a wide margin, nearly doubling the stat of the next-closest rotation player. Indiana has to hope Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts can ramp up their rebounding numbers enough to offset Murphy's departure; otherwise, the Pacers will face a deluge of second shots.

However, the Pacers' biggest problem is a structural one: The organization finds itself handcuffed as it tries to repair the roster, because the team is near the luxury-tax limit and doesn't have the financial wherewithal to go beyond it. Indiana has spent the past two seasons playing a waiting game, signing second-tier players to inexpensive, short-term contracts until it slips under the cap in 2011 and can undertake more aggressive measures. Watson worked out halfway decently; Dahntay Jones, Solomon Jones and Luther Head did not.

The team's only playable card, Murphy's expiring contract, has already been used (see below). Indiana is desperate to move T.J. Ford's $8.5 million expiring deal as well, but it faces slim odds of getting anything of value out of it. Should Dunleavy's knee prove to be at full strength, he'll represent the only other marketable commodity who isn't in the team's long-term plans.


Offseason Moves
Suffice it to say it was a fairly quiet summer in the Corn Belt. The entire management team -- president Larry Bird, general manager David Morway and coach Jim O'Brien -- are on the final years of their contracts, which could create some activity late in the season if the Pacers' lottery streak looks headed toward five. For now, it's all quiet on this front.

They drafted Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Magnum Rolle. I really like the George pick, as I think he was one of the draft's more underrated players and should thrive in the Pacers' space-it-and-shoot-it system. I understand the concern that he's a bit redundant with Granger, but each is big enough that both can play at the same time against many opponents. I suspect that pairing will be much more troublesome for opponents to guard than the other way around.

Stephenson was a defensible pick basketball-wise and a god-awful one PR-wise. Indiana had just finished fumigating its roster of all the players with rap sheets, an important consideration in the straitlaced Hoosier State, but Stephenson had considerable baggage in college and was arrested during the summer for domestic violence. He already had signed a contract by that point, but it's possible Indy will cut its losses and tell him to stay away, as it did with Jamaal Tinsley two years ago.

Rolle doesn't have a contract but will be at training camp, and given that he's a 6-foot-11 power forward and the team desperately needs help at the 4, he probably will make the squad.


Let Earl Watson go. Traded Troy Murphy to New Jersey, received Darren Collison and James Posey from New Orleans in four-team deal. Price's development made Watson expendable as the backup point guard, while Indiana gave itself a major upgrade in the starting group by getting Collison from New Orleans for Murphy.

Effectively, Collison is the first free agent Indiana acquired with its upcoming 2011 cap space; it just made the move a year early. New Orleans stuck the Pacers with Posey's toxic contract, taking $7 million in 2011 cap room, and that's why they were willing to cut the deal for such a promising young player.

Collison has a bit of T.J. Ford in his game -- a small, shoot-first speedster -- but he's also a good defensive player. Although he's not a high-assist player, he's much more in tune than Ford with the general idea that the other four guys should get the ball once in a while.

That makes this deal a win for the Pacers long term, but in 2010-11 it may not pay great dividends -- Indiana had to open a giant hole at power forward to close the one at point guard. Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts will get first crack at closing it.


Biggest Strength: "First shot" defense
I have little faith in Indiana's ability to retrieve the ball when it forces a miss, but the Pacers should be able to force quite a few misses. The Pacers were pretty good in this respect a year ago, ranking fifth in 2-point field goal defense, and all the indicators are that they'll be better this time around.

For starters, the addition of Collison is a major plus. Although he's very small, he's also a good defender with great fundamentals, and his ability to stop the ball at the point of attack should make life easier for the Pacers' frontcourt. Of course, the departed Watson also was good in this respect, but Ford wasn't and played a big chunk of Indiana's point guard minutes last season.

On the wing, both Rush and Jones are solid defenders, and while Dunleavy isn't great one-on-one, he's an excellent team defender. Granger is a decent defensive player, too, and George's length should make him somewhat competent while he cuts his teeth as a rookie.

Up front, however, is where the greatest upgrade is likely. Murphy was a great rebounder, but didn't do diddly before the ball went up. Hansbrough, presuming he can overcome a baffling inner-ear infection, is a far more active defensive player and will be considerably better against pick-and-rolls. Even Granger and McRoberts are likely to be upgrades.

At center, Hibbert is learning how to use his size to affect shots in the paint, and his sharp drop in fouls last season was a good omen. Additionally, anything the Pacers get from Foster -- a very good defensive player when healthy -- will be a huge improvement on the zilch Solomon Jones gave them a season ago.

Biggest Weakness: Rebounding
There's no way to sugarcoat this -- the Pacers are going to get absolutely pounded on the glass. Even if Hansbrough turns out to be a monster, they'll linger among the league's bottom two or three teams in rebound rate; if he does anything short of that, they'll challenge Phoenix for dead last.

Pacers' rebound rates, 2009-10
Player Reb. rate
Murphy 17.2
Hansbrough 14.7
McRoberts 13.2
Hibbert 12.4
S. Jones 11.6
Posey 11.2*
Dunleavy 8.7
Granger 8.2
*Played for New Orleans
The chart shows the math: Last season Murphy was far and away the team's best rebounder, and he isn't around anymore. Hansbrough and McRoberts, the two probable replacements, grab about 4 percent fewer rebounds between them. That's a large difference, but it becomes a staggering gap if the Pacers go small and use somebody like Posey or Granger as the power forward.

Murphy played nearly 60 percent of the Pacers' minutes last season; the resulting decline in the team's rebound rate would be on the order of 2 percent if all his minutes went to Hansbrough/McRoberts, and considerably more if they went to smaller players.

Indiana's 71.4 rebound rate a year ago was 29th in the league; Golden State, at 68.0, was the worst rebounding team in history last season. Take off 2 percent to 3 percent based on the Murphy calculation above, and my back-of-the-envelope numbers project Indy's rebound rate to land between 68.5 and 69.0, depending on how often the Pacers play small. That wouldn't quite make them the worst rebounding team in history, but it would almost certainly make them the worst in the league.

The one possible antidote would be a return to health from Foster. He missed nearly all of last season to undergo back surgery and has been plagued by health problems for the past several years, but when he plays he's a freak on the glass. Just 15-20 minutes a night from him as a backup center would provide considerable improvement.



Outlook
Stop me if you've heard this before. The Pacers, with one star player (Granger), one second-tier star (Collison this time, replacing Murphy and Dunleavy from past seasons) and a bunch of half-good players will be good enough to compete for a playoff spot but not good enough to actually earn one.

The upgrade at point guard should be roughly offset by a decline in production at power forward -- I talked a lot about Murphy's rebounding, but he's also a whale of an outside shooter, so the trade may not improve the Pacers' offense much. Meanwhile, the general mediocrity of the supporting crew should mostly offset the offensive output of the Collison-Granger-Hibbert core.

The bar for making the playoffs in the East hasn't been set real high, so with a comeback season by Foster and good health from the others, Indy may squeeze through. That's especially true if the Pacers cash in their expiring contracts early to try to upgrade the roster at the trade deadline. More likely, however, they'll end up in an all-too-familiar position for the fifth straight season.

Prediction: 34-48, 3rd in Central Division, 9th in Eastern Conference

pacer4ever
09-27-2010, 01:05 PM
34 wins i will be pissed if we only win 34 games.

ChicagoJ
09-27-2010, 01:20 PM
I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing the benefits that a capable PG like Collison brings to the team at both ends of the court.

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that Murphy's stats were hollow, that his points and rebounds will be easily replaced, and that the round table in my office that my laptop sits on would be an upgrade over Murphy defensively.

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that our your players are maturing and should be less inconsistent. I think his model doesn't recognize that a Collison-Granger-Hibbert core will be very competitive in the East (except of course for Miami.)

I do agree with his comments regarding a George-Granger forward tandem. That's a good observation on his part, which is certainly rare for Hollinger. If George develops as expected, that could be a really strong part of our lineup... NEXT season. Not sure its reasonable to expect it right away given how many times we've heard the word "raw" associated with George.

Right now, I think this will be a 0.500 team - assuming the "Big 3" are healthy and on the court together for 70+ games. And you all know that's a lot better than I've been predicting for the past 3, 4 seasons.

immortality
09-27-2010, 01:25 PM
Wow great analysis....

Brad8888
09-27-2010, 01:35 PM
Hollinger fails to recognize the positive impact of the fact that the Pacers no longer have a "designated rebounder" in Murphy, and instead will rely on multiple players to both block out and rebound, therefore the team rebounding should improve despite less likelihood of any single player achieving the rate of rebounding posted by Murphy. The Pacers might actually achieve average status within the league both from a rebounding and defensive standpoint that meets both the statistical and intuitive eyeball tests just because Murphy is no longer with the franchise, let alone all of the improvements that Roy will have made.

Shoot, if half of what O'B said in todays media day coverage comes to pass with respect to how Hibbert and McRoberts are going to be utilized, coupled with a better Dunleavy being the catalyst to having a motion based offense, the Pacers are a no-brainer pick for 7th or 8th seed in the East in my opinion, and if other positive things occur as well, the Pacers could surprise all but the most optimistic of fans and actually end up in the mid to upper 40's in the W column. O'Brien would almost be vindicated with respect to his coaching competency if that were to occur, even in my heavily critical view.

But, that would require that there is follow through on the indicated changes that are committed to long term by the coaching staff, and anything beyond cautious optimism regarding that is difficult for me to muster.

Putnam
09-27-2010, 01:36 PM
I do agree with his comments regarding a George-Granger forward tandem. That's a good observation on his part, which is certainly rare for Hollinger.

Wherever he uses the term 'power forward' he predicts serious failure on the Pacers. But wherever he recognizes that a team doesn't have to have a power forward -- that it can play two balanced forwards -- maybe the Pacers will do OK:


I suspect that (the Granger-George) pairing will be much more troublesome for opponents to guard than the other way around.


That's something to look forward to.




.

BornReady
09-27-2010, 01:54 PM
Hollinger should write for BleacherReport

Unclebuck
09-27-2010, 01:55 PM
D. Jones got more touches per minute than Murphy

BillS
09-27-2010, 02:00 PM
Quiet? What, nothing but snagging LBJ would be considered active?

Chewy
09-27-2010, 02:03 PM
what was the last year's forecast?

Freddie fan
09-27-2010, 02:21 PM
"There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent)."

I hadn't seen this stat before that shows the Pacers third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt. This seems like a far more telling stat about the Pacers' shot selection and preference for 3s than the stat I've seen here before that has the Pacers in the middle of the pack in the number of 3-point shots attempted.

PacersAllDay
09-27-2010, 02:35 PM
This is good, fair analysis. I think our optimism hinges a lot on Roy's development. If he's the same as last year, I don't think we make the playoffs. If he makes a leap to a night in night out command a double team, control the paint center, the Pacers should make a jump too.

TheDon
09-27-2010, 02:39 PM
I love how he mentions that everyone elses foul rate was way higher than murphy's...wonder why that is.....hmmmm.

90'sNBARocked
09-27-2010, 02:50 PM
Pretty decent read, but man does Hollinger have a woody for Dahant Jones, he loves to bash him at every possible time

SMosley21
09-27-2010, 02:52 PM
About Collison:

Although he's not a high-assist player...

I guess averaging nearly 10 assists per game when he was starting for New Orleans wasn't enough.

binarysolo
09-27-2010, 03:04 PM
About Collison:


I guess averaging nearly 10 assists per game when he was starting for New Orleans wasn't enough.

I think Hollinger uses a sort of assist/usage metric, where "usage" refers to a play that ends with an action by that player, e.g. assist, TO, FGA, fouled, etc. Collison handles the ball a lot so by that metric, he isn't a high assist player, maybe? I could be off base here.

ZepZach
09-27-2010, 03:06 PM
I'm actually afraid that he might be correct. I'm hoping we can still pull off one more trade in order to get a starter-caliber PF. I really feel that if we can get a solid PF, we will be much better going into the season.

cdash
09-27-2010, 03:14 PM
This thread just shows the vitriol for anything John Hollinger writes. I thought that was a really fair assessment of the team, I honestly share a lot of the same concerns. I think we will win more than 34 games (probably around 38), but I thought it was a good read.

Sookie
09-27-2010, 03:17 PM
I think because their young and more talanted, this group will be competitive...but they'll also be inconsistent. I think they could win anywhere from 34-44 games. I hope they make the playoffs, that experience will be good for the core.

flox
09-27-2010, 05:46 PM
A wonderful analysis. Hollinger is spot on. Haters gonna hate but Murphy is a good rebounder and we will miss his boards, I predict our overall rebounding goes down as does our rebound rate this year- barring getting another rebounder of Murphy's level. (9+ boards per game)

He brings up a good point that I didn't think about- Murphy is probably a very efficient scorer and he didn't require a lot of touches. Hibbert, Granger, and Collison all need the ball.

I think I will revise my predictions and say that we will be a 34 win team this year, just like Hollinger states.

King Phoenix
09-27-2010, 05:57 PM
D. Jones got more touches per minute than Murphy

Well that's because if ford wasn't hogging the ball or granger wasn't trying to do everything than that leaves u with 4 sec enough time for Murphy to get 8 threes in

flox
09-27-2010, 06:02 PM
Well that's because if ford wasn't hogging the ball or granger wasn't trying to do everything than that leaves u with 4 sec enough time for Murphy to get 8 threes in

:whoknows::confused:

Kegboy
09-27-2010, 07:30 PM
I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing the benefits that a capable PG like Collison brings to the team at both ends of the court.

I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that Murphy's stats were hollow, that his points and rebounds will be easily replaced, and that the round table in my office that my laptop sits on would be an upgrade over Murphy defensively.

Any chance you'd take Rush and Lance for your table?

:signit:

BlueNGold
09-27-2010, 08:04 PM
He makes some valid points. He also shows a lot of ignorance.

For example: "....another unexpected issue was the Pacers' lousy performance on the offensive glass." Why would this be unexpected when both the PF and SF are always 30 feet from the basket?...and rebounding is the opposite of your Center's greatest strengths?

Also, the Murphy love is ridiculous. You don't need to even look at his horrible plus/minus. All you need to do is look at our W/L with and without him the last two years. Better yet, just watch the game.

I think I'll take my chances without our double-double machine of a PF. Let's count the wins in May...

spreedom
09-27-2010, 08:19 PM
Also, the Murphy love is ridiculous. You don't need to even look at his horrible plus/minus. All you need to do is look at our W/L with and without him the last two years. Better yet, just watch the game.

Love it!

Day-V
09-27-2010, 08:27 PM
Pretty decent read, but man does Hollinger have a woody for Dahant Jones, he loves to bash him at every possible time


http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/inconceivable_means_02.jpg

BringJackBack
09-27-2010, 08:52 PM
Hate to sound like a dude who just broke up with his ex girl but...

Murph was soft and just wasn't any good.

But Collison, Collison is something else. He could be Jamaal Tinsley rookie year x2

MyFavMartin
09-27-2010, 09:31 PM
A wonderful analysis. Hollinger is spot on. Haters gonna hate but Murphy is a good rebounder and we will miss his boards, I predict our overall rebounding goes down as does our rebound rate this year- barring getting another rebounder of Murphy's level. (9+ boards per game)

He brings up a good point that I didn't think about- Murphy is probably a very efficient scorer and he didn't require a lot of touches. Hibbert, Granger, and Collison all need the ball.

I think I will revise my predictions and say that we will be a 34 win team this year, just like Hollinger states.

I'm not going to miss a guy who can't defend his man or rotate to help defend another... There's no wonder why he rebounded so well. It's the only thing he concentrates on.

pwee31
09-27-2010, 09:42 PM
A lot of will get to see what the majority of us wanted to see last year, and that's if the Pacers are a better team simply be subtracting Troy Murphy. Don't get me wrong, Murphy's double doubles were nice, but a lot of us felt like those were meaningless stats.

It's a small sample size, but the Pacers were 7-2 without Troy Murphy last year. Both losses were to the Knicks, one in which the Pacers we're winning the entire game until Harrington caught fire and the Knicks outscored Pacers 34-17 in the 4th. Pacers were 5-0 without Murphy up to that point.

The 2nd was in the Garden in a game that the Pacers were also without Granger, Ford, Foster, and Hansbrough as well.

2 of the wins included victories over the Celtics and Magic.

So I guess we'll see if there's addition by subtraction

Dece
09-27-2010, 09:48 PM
I see 41 wins as a high end everything goes reasonably well kind of prediction...

36-38 most likely. Not far off from his prediction really, even 41 wins probably nets us 9th in the East anyway.

BRushWithDeath
09-27-2010, 10:58 PM
I think his win prediction may well be accurate.

But I still firmly believe our rebounding will improve, on both ends, without Murphy.

Kemo
09-28-2010, 01:12 AM
Any chance you'd take Rush and Lance for your table?

:signit:


LOL

cdash
09-28-2010, 01:30 AM
But I still firmly believe our rebounding will improve, on both ends, without Murphy.

Just playing devil's advocate here: How do you figure our rebounding will actually improve without Murphy? I know the spiel about "designated rebounders," his failure to block out his man, and him ripping a few rebounds away from teammates, but do you really think we will actually improve without him? By my count, the only above average rebounder we have is Foster, and his health and age are question marks.

D-BONE
09-28-2010, 07:24 AM
Just playing devil's advocate here: How do you figure our rebounding will actually improve without Murphy? I know the spiel about "designated rebounders," his failure to block out his man, and him ripping a few rebounds away from teammates, but do you really think we will actually improve without him? By my count, the only above average rebounder we have is Foster, and his health and age are question marks.

Agreed. I think along with a Foster renaissance, we'd need consistent contributions from TH & JMcR. None of those are givens. I know DG doesn't play around the rim so much, but a little more output from him would be a welcome sight for me, too. Rebounding and interior D are glaring weaknesses for this group until proven otherwise.

flox
09-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Just playing devil's advocate here: How do you figure our rebounding will actually improve without Murphy? I know the spiel about "designated rebounders," his failure to block out his man, and him ripping a few rebounds away from teammates, but do you really think we will actually improve without him? By my count, the only above average rebounder we have is Foster, and his health and age are question marks.

The haterate is strong =/ I agree with your post completely. We will be a much worse team rebounding. I would bet money on it. Or an avatar bet.

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 11:37 AM
IMO, I don't think we as a fan base will be missing Troy Murphy once the season starts.

Will we miss his rebounding? Yes, but there are so many unknowns to predict statistically whether we are better or not. I think Tyler will be a very good rebounder and could easily replace the rebounding of Murphy and definitely improve on his offensive rebounds. I think the biggest question mark is how well will McRoberts rebound the ball. Against the Rockets, Wizards, and the few other games where he got some burn, he seemed to me to be aggressive rebounding the ball. In such a small sample of playing time, it is tough for McRoberts to get into a rhythm, so I think you can't really go on his numbers, but more on the "eye test". Jeff will be a huge addition to our rotation in terms of rebounding the ball. Once we see what we are getting out of our replacement PF minutes, I don't think we will miss Troy's rebounding at all to be honest.

And we sure as hell will improve defensively and on the offensive glass. I don't see how his rebounds were as vital as the author seems to indicate.

flox
09-28-2010, 12:13 PM
IMO, I don't think we as a fan base will be missing Troy Murphy once the season starts.

Will we miss his rebounding? Yes, but there are so many unknowns to predict statistically whether we are better or not. I think Tyler will be a very good rebounder and could easily replace the rebounding of Murphy and definitely improve on his offensive rebounds.

So you expected him to have a defensive rebounding of 8.4 while keeping up his offensive rebounding of about 2 this season, to average 10 boards a game.

So in essence, you think Tyler will be a top 10 rebounder this year.



I think the biggest question mark is how well will McRoberts rebound the ball. Against the Rockets, Wizards, and the few other games where he got some burn, he seemed to me to be aggressive rebounding the ball. In such a small sample of playing time, it is tough for McRoberts to get into a rhythm, so I think you can't really go on his numbers, but more on the "eye test". Jeff will be a huge addition to our rotation in terms of rebounding the ball. Once we see what we are getting out of our replacement PF minutes, I don't think we will miss Troy's rebounding at all to be honest.

So basically, numbers don't matter, just look a him as a player and he passes the "eye" test, which means that we should think that he is a good rebounder, and that Foster comes back he can contribute more rebounding to our team.

Call me crazy, but that shouldn't equal the output that Murphy had in his last 2 seasons with the Pacers. And even if it does, then we've only covered the one created by one player. And against teams where they were starting players like Chuck Hayes and Scola and Blatche and McGee, McRoberts was able to get rebounds.

d_c
09-28-2010, 12:31 PM
IMO, I don't think we as a fan base will be missing Troy Murphy once the season starts.

Will we miss his rebounding?

I don't think you're really going to miss his rebounding. Pacers weren't any worse a rebounding team with him off the floor as opposed to on the floor. They were a little better, actually.

Was Murphy always a guy who could pump up his own rebounding stats? Absolutely.

Was he a guy who helped his team control the boards better and secure more possessions off missed shots? I really don't think he was that big a factor in this. Personally, I don't care about a guy's rebounding stats if the team isn't securing more rebounds when he's on the floor. If the team isn't any better securing the ball then I think it's pretty meaningless. The only people who really care are usually just the fanboys of that particular player.

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 12:55 PM
So you expected him to have a defensive rebounding of 8.4 while keeping up his offensive rebounding of about 2 this season, to average 10 boards a game.

So in essence, you think Tyler will be a top 10 rebounder this year.

No, statistically I do not expect Tyler will play enough to garner 10 rebounds per game. Will he get a hell of a lot tougher rebounds than Troy EVER did? Absolutely. Tyler (or anybody else who is 6'10"+) will easily replace the KIND of rebounding that we got from Murphy.


So basically, numbers don't matter, just look a him as a player and he passes the "eye" test, which means that we should think that he is a good rebounder, and that Foster comes back he can contribute more rebounding to our team.

This point wasn't the most decipherable. But yes. You can use the "eye test" to see if someone is a good rebounder. Does he out jump other people to get a rebound. Does he pack the lane and fight off other people for boards? Or are all of his rebounds defensive and uncontested? The eye test works if you have a clue.


Call me crazy, but that shouldn't equal the output that Murphy had in his last 2 seasons with the Pacers. And even if it does, then we've only covered the one created by one player. And against teams where they were starting players like Chuck Hayes and Scola and Blatche and McGee, McRoberts was able to get rebounds.

The problem with your response is that Murphy's minutes will be replaced by more than one person. Will any of those three people put up the "numbers" that Troy did? No. Can they replace his rebounding? Absolutely. Murphy is a good rebounder in that he reacts well to the ball. He is not a tough rebounder by any stretch. Do I think Tyler and Foster can duplicate his toughness? Absolutely. Do I think if McRoberts averages 35 minutes per game like Murphy did that he will replicate those "numbers"? Yeah, I think he could get close enough that we won't miss Troy's overrated rebounding stats. And with more experience McRoberts reads on missed shots will improve.

One top of that, our defense and offensive rebounding will be 100% better without Murphy. Troy Murphy is a solid basketball player for his skill set. He is a good shooter. He is a good ball handler off the dribble that he sets up with his outside shooting. He has good rebounding instincts when it comes to reading a missed shot. Let's not confuse his rebounding stats with actual production. Our post defense will improve. Our offensive rebounding will be better. Our fouling rates will go down. Our team defense will improve. Our tempo will decrease some. Other players' stats will improve with Murphy's departure. There are so many factors that you are neglecting when focusing on Murphy's ten rebounds per game.

90'sNBARocked
09-28-2010, 01:39 PM
http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/inconceivable_means_02.jpg

lol

It means everytime he gets an opportunity to put Dahany down he is so excited he is at "full attention"

Kind of like New Jack City when he said "I want to shot you so bad my ---- is hard"

flox
09-28-2010, 07:00 PM
No, statistically I do not expect Tyler will play enough to garner 10 rebounds per game. Will he get a hell of a lot tougher rebounds than Troy EVER did? Absolutely. Tyler (or anybody else who is 6'10"+) will easily replace the KIND of rebounding that we got from Murphy.

I don't care what kind of rebounding we have, I care about the fact that in the end of the day the damn ball is in our player's hands. I don't care if Murphy gets bunnies. The point is that someone has too, and Murphy was very damn good at getting them.




This point wasn't the most decipherable. But yes. You can use the "eye test" to see if someone is a good rebounder. Does he out jump other people to get a rebound. Does he pack the lane and fight off other people for boards? Or are all of his rebounds defensive and uncontested? The eye test works if you have a clue.

I guess I just don't have a clue then. But see my point above. I don't care, I'd rather take 10 rebounds over 2 tough rebounds.




The problem with your response is that Murphy's minutes will be replaced by more than one person. Will any of those three people put up the "numbers" that Troy did? No. Can they replace his rebounding? Absolutely. Murphy is a good rebounder in that he reacts well to the ball. He is not a tough rebounder by any stretch. Do I think Tyler and Foster can duplicate his toughness? Absolutely. Do I think if McRoberts averages 35 minutes per game like Murphy did that he will replicate those "numbers"? Yeah, I think he could get close enough that we won't miss Troy's overrated rebounding stats. And with more experience McRoberts reads on missed shots will improve.

Am I missing something? You used "numbers" twice but used them in difference contexts, but they are the same word. You said that they can't replace his numbers and can. Yes. I am reading your posts. No, you aren't making sense. You can't change the meaning of numbers halfway through.


No, statistically I do not expect Tyler will play enough to garner 10 rebounds per game. Will he get a hell of a lot tougher rebounds than Troy EVER did? Absolutely. Tyler (or anybody else who is 6'10"+) will easily replace the KIND of rebounding that we got from Murphy.

I don't care what kind of rebounding we have, I care about the fact that in the end of the day the damn ball is in our player's hands. I don't care if Murphy gets bunnies. The point is that someone has too, and Murphy was very damn good at getting them.




This point wasn't the most decipherable. But yes. You can use the "eye test" to see if someone is a good rebounder. Does he out jump other people to get a rebound. Does he pack the lane and fight off other people for boards? Or are all of his rebounds defensive and uncontested? The eye test works if you have a clue.

I guess I just don't have a clue then. But see my point above. I don't care, I'd rather take 10 rebounds over 2 tough rebounds.




One top of that, our defense and offensive rebounding will be 100% better without Murphy. Troy Murphy is a solid basketball player for his skill set. He is a good shooter. He is a good ball handler off the dribble that he sets up with his outside shooting. He has good rebounding instincts when it comes to reading a missed shot. Let's not confuse his rebounding stats with actual production. Our post defense will improve. Our offensive rebounding will be better. Our fouling rates will go down. Our team defense will improve. Our tempo will decrease some. Other players' stats will improve with Murphy's departure. There are so many factors that you are neglecting when focusing on Murphy's ten rebounds per game.

If we don't count stats, what production increase are we looking at. Do I have to use the eye test? Do I have to just have pure blind faith and ignore what the numbers say and instead believe on the fact that our rebounding is better but the data will be worse?

Our fouling rates will go down? Murphy did not foul as nearly as much as the two foulasaurus rexes we have for centers. And lets not even talk about Hans who I suspect is like Foster with his foul rate.

I understand why our team defense will improve. That doesn't have to do with rebounding and the problem that i posts. If our defense improves our rebounding needs to improve because if we don't get those missed shots it means nothing. If our rebounding is worse but our defense is better it's a wash.

Yeah, Troy isn't a good offensive rebounder.

BlueNGold
09-28-2010, 09:14 PM
The fact Troy is gone will be one of the two or at most three reasons our record will improve this year.

The biggest beneficiary is going to be Hibbert. Roy will have a much better defensive player next to him. This will reduce Roy's fouls, keep him fresher allowing him to be on the floor more minutes. This is likely to get the other team's big in foul trouble allowing us to play against their backups for more minutes.

Obviously, interior defense will improve noticeably. Combine this with the fact our perimeter defense is much better than a couple years ago and people might be shocked at how much our defense seems to improve with this subtraction.

Will we be weak on the boards? The stats indicate this, but I think different personnel in the game will change the dynamic so much you cannot make a comparison. While Troy is out on the perimeter, there will be times where Hans or Foster gets an offensive board to reduce the drop in Troy's defensive boards. ...and you know Hans will be getting some And-ones if he's on the floor....which are a lot more valuable than a defensive board.

Will our perimeter game suffer? Probably in the 1st quarter. Probably not the rest of the game. However, we need Collison, Rush and Dunleavy to put up a lot of shots....whenever Roy is not working in the post.

So are there questions? Sure, but only on offense and I think these questions will be answered with more victories one way or another.

15th parallel
09-28-2010, 09:51 PM
Our fouling rates will go down? Murphy did not foul as nearly as much as the two foulasaurus rexes we have for centers. And lets not even talk about Hans who I suspect is like Foster with his foul rate.



Murphy has the fewest fouls simply because he just did not man up on defense. The opposing player just scores on him with ease, or just leaves his man and just does not exert effort in chasing his man down. I remember an article on Yahoo Sports showing different pictures of Troy Murphy being scored on by opposing players.

imawhat
09-28-2010, 10:01 PM
Just playing devil's advocate here: How do you figure our rebounding will actually improve without Murphy? I know the spiel about "designated rebounders," his failure to block out his man, and him ripping a few rebounds away from teammates, but do you really think we will actually improve without him? By my count, the only above average rebounder we have is Foster, and his health and age are question marks.


I'm sure someone can look it up, but I think we rebounded better last season when Murphy was out of the lineup.

cdash
09-28-2010, 10:06 PM
I'm sure someone can look it up, but I think we rebounded better last season when Murphy was out of the lineup.

Which was typically our second unit versus the other teams' second unit. I will remain skeptical that our rebounding can improve until I actually see it. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary Hollinger and Murphy hate.

Naptown_Seth
09-28-2010, 10:10 PM
Indiana has to hope Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts can ramp up their rebounding numbers enough to offset Murphy's departure
Hollinger is in for a big surprise on this count.

The TEAM'S defensive rebounding doesn't drop off without Troy in the game, and we all know the reason behind that. Have fun random Net being pushed out of the way by Troy.

Meanwhile if guys like Roy and Josh do actually get some PT then the offensive glass will definitely improve, and that's even with Roy being a rather subpar rebounding big.



I still think the team will stink, but it sure as hell won't be because Troy is gone.


There is one solution, and the entire comparison to the GSW pace and various indicators tells you where that finger should be pointing. By the way, just how is the Warrior's coach doing....oh yeah.

That's a clue Larry. When a team with a truly ugly roster dumps a coach who actually got the team into the 2nd round just a couple of years ago then it might be what I like to call an indicator of what proper expectations should be.

Naptown_Seth
09-28-2010, 10:16 PM
Which was typically our second unit versus the other teams' second unit. I will remain skeptical that our rebounding can improve until I actually see it. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary Hollinger and Murphy hate.
I love Hollinger and I know he does watch games, more than other main ESPN pundit-only types (John being a stat geek by comparison).

However, he does still lean more on stats and especially with team's he doesn't get to follow much. Troy is a classic stat-illusion which makes him especially dangerous for Hollinger to evaluate.



The single best ESPN NBA opinion is Ryan Rusillo and his NBA Today podcast. He literally will watch ALL the games on many nights and he's the type that will point out something like Troy stealing boards or a few awful defensive plays despite making a few 3's at the other end.

BlueNGold
09-28-2010, 10:22 PM
I'm sure someone can look it up, but I think we rebounded better last season when Murphy was out of the lineup.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Pacers Season:
Pacer Rebound Average: 41.5
Opponent Average: 46.6
Differential: -5.1

Games without Troy:
Pacer Average: 44.6
Opponent Average:45.8
Differential: -0.8

...so, actually the differential without Troy would be even more in the red.

Not to mention we went 7-2 without Mr. Double-Double. Who cares what our rebound numbers are if the W's keep coming?

Here are the Troyless games from last year with board numbers:

Team Result Pacer Boards-Opponent Boards
NY W 52-47
Wash W 51-47
GS W 57-42
Boston W 34-43
NJ W 44-51
NY L 46-40
Memp L 41-37
MN W 42-44
NY L 35-55
OR W 44-52

Edit: Just had to quote Hollinger: "This makes the offseason trade of Murphy a particular concern. He led the team in defensive rebound rate by a wide margin, nearly doubling the stat of the next-closest rotation player. Indiana has to hope Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts can ramp up their rebounding numbers enough to offset Murphy's departure; otherwise, the Pacers will face a deluge of second shots." A deluge, huh? How then do our rebound numbers improve significantly when...BY FAR...our best rebounder was not on the floor?

Hicks
09-28-2010, 10:35 PM
I believe, with regards to fouls, Murphy may have hurt us by simply not being able to contain his man, and the help D ended up fouling after the initial break down.

I believe, with regards to rebounds, that Murphy didn't grab many of them that couldn't have been grabbed by someone else if he hadn't been out there.

Hicks
09-28-2010, 10:40 PM
Here are the only stats you need regarding Troy's rebounding.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09IND11.HTM

Team offensive rebounding while Troy was on the floor: 23.2%, while he was benched, 26.1%, net of -2.9%.

Team defensive rebounding while Troy was on the floor: 70.0%, while he was benched, 70.5%, net of -0.5%.

Team total rebounding while Tory was on the floor: 46.6%, while he was benched, 48.3%, net of -1.7%.

The Pacers are a better rebounding team without Troy Murphy.

Naptown_Seth
09-28-2010, 10:40 PM
"There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent)."

I hadn't seen this stat before that shows the Pacers third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt. This seems like a far more telling stat about the Pacers' shot selection and preference for 3s than the stat I've seen here before that has the Pacers in the middle of the pack in the number of 3-point shots attempted.
You haven't seen that stat. The Pacers were THIRD in 3PAs last year with a whopping 1896.

The other team's that took at least 1800 and shot below 36%? New York, Millwaukee, Houston. Orlando took more than anyone, but at 37.5% and with Dwight Howard on the glass it's easy to understand.


They were also 3rd in 3PA/FGA, but basically the top 6 3PA were also the top 6 in 3PA/FGA anyway.

The 27.8% 3PA/FGA is below the 28.9 and 33.1% put up by JOB's two full season Boston teams, but well above the years of Carlise which were 20.3% (61 wins), 25.5% (brawl), 24.5% (Ron leaves, Peja joins, JO hurt), 21.2% (partial year with Troy and Dun).

Even in their high water mark when it was all guards and no healthy bigs, with James Jones playing PF and Jackson playing SF, they still only took 1575 3PAs for that 25.5% ratio. Last year they took 1896. In JOB's first full season in Boston they took 1946.

Which is closer to 1896, 1575 or 1946? JOB has blown away what was the previous high for Pacers 3PAs which was born out of desperate need in some of the toughest roster times. We are squarely in the epicenter of JOB high 3PA volume, horrible offensive rebounding numbers basketball...and Troy was clearly his Antoine Walker.


Most 3PAs EVER by Reggie Miller (barring the 3 shortened line seasons) was 464 (37%) in 01-02 and then 443 (41%) the following season (both Isiah of course). Right now Granger has seasons of 450 and 428 3PA and that's in 67 and 62 games. That translates to an 80 game total of 537 and 552. Mull that over, Granger would have crushed Reggie's 3PA volume had he not been injured. That's Reggie Miller, arguably the greatest 3P shooter ever and destined to be at least in the top 5 of 3P volume for years to come. BOOM BABY was invented because of Reggie.

And you have a system that has Granger taking way more bombs than Reggie did in the days of his highest 3PA rate.

Hicks
09-28-2010, 10:44 PM
Sticking with that same page, his net effect with regards to team fouls is essentially nothing, so I'll go back on my first line from post #49.

Per 48, we commit 22 fouls with him, 23 without him, but with regards to fouls drawn, we got 20 with him, 21 without him, so essentially it's a wash.

ChicagoJ
09-29-2010, 12:28 AM
BRAVO, SETH!

cordobes
10-05-2010, 07:06 PM
I will remain skeptical that our rebounding can improve until I actually see it.

Yeah, regardless of Murphy's impact, rebounding is still an issue because last season the Pacers were poor on the backboards with or without Murphy on the floor. Even if Murphy's departure becomes addition by subtraction rebounding-wise and they show a slight improvement, that would still leave them with plenty of ground to make to be at least average.