PDA

View Full Version : Is "playing to win" overrated?



vnzla81
01-16-2011, 10:38 PM
I've been asking this question to myself for a while now, is "playing to win" overrated? what I mean about "playing to win" is what many people here use as an excuse for no playing the young players, how come some of the teams that are playing their young players big minutes have a similar winning record than the Pacers? (pacers 16wins, Clippers 14wins, GS 16wins)

pacer4ever
01-16-2011, 10:42 PM
those teams play 2 win and 2 devlope young talent also

Unclebuck
01-16-2011, 10:55 PM
I remember similar discussions about this for the past several years. I think in order to say that other teams "are playing their young guys" you have to look to see if any veterans that have been benched are healthy enough to be playing.

Overall I think the pacers have played their young guys

LA_Confidential
01-16-2011, 10:55 PM
Ask Herman Edwards.

flox
01-16-2011, 11:01 PM
I remember similar discussions about this for the past several years. I think in order to say that other teams "are playing their young guys" you have to look to see if any veterans that have ben benched are healthy enough to be playing.

Overall I think the pacers have played their young guys

Similarly, talent level also plays a factor.

Eleazar
01-16-2011, 11:14 PM
The way O'Brien goes about it, yes it is.

Midcoasted
01-16-2011, 11:19 PM
Job 's idea of playing to win is playing the veterans over the younger guys at all cost regardless of talent level :mad:

vnzla81
01-16-2011, 11:25 PM
Job 's idea of playing to win is playing the veterans over the younger guys at all cost regardless of talent level :mad:

I agree, Hansbrough>Posey and until this last week Posey was getting most of the minutes, the same could be said about Josh>Posey and AJ>TJ.

I keep saying that if Jim was the Clippers coach, he wouldn't be playing those young guys as much and I'm pretty sure that their record could be worse.

Unclebuck
01-16-2011, 11:28 PM
Job 's idea of playing to win is playing the veterans over the younger guys at all cost regardless of talent level :mad:

But that just isn't true. Roy, Brandon, Josh, Tyler, George have all gotten thier shot. Josh probably would not start for any other team in the NBA. Jim could have played his vets instead. Roy plays big minutes as does brandon. Now Tyler and George are getting signifigant minutes. I have no idea where you get the idea that he plays vets over younger guys "at all costs" - I think that is simply a false statement

Day-V
01-16-2011, 11:29 PM
Beats the hell out of "Playing to lose".

hoops_guy
01-16-2011, 11:36 PM
But that just isn't true. Roy, Brandon, Josh, Tyler, George have all gotten thier shot. Josh probably would not start for any other team in the NBA. Jim could have played his vets instead. Roy plays big minutes as does brandon. Now Tyler and George are getting signifigant minutes. I have no idea where you get the idea that he plays vets over younger guys "at all costs" - I think that is simply a false statement

I really, really, really wish I had my hands on a picture of James Posey guarding (or at least trying to..) Amare Stoudamire. That is what Midcoasted was referring too.

I think the Hansbrough, Paul George, and Lance sudden playing time is not the doing of Jim. That is the doing of Bird and Morway.

croz24
01-16-2011, 11:37 PM
Beats the hell out of "Playing to lose".

not always. many times playing to lose offers you greater success in the future.

Unclebuck
01-16-2011, 11:38 PM
I
I think the Hansbrough, Paul George, and Lance sudden playing time is not the doing of Jim. That is the doing of Bird and Morway.

OK, so we are back to the everything bad is Jim and everything good is someone else.

pacer4ever
01-16-2011, 11:39 PM
not always. many times playing to lose offers you greater success in the future.

Thats what OKC did few yrs back when they traded Ray Allen.

vnzla81
01-16-2011, 11:40 PM
But that just isn't true. Roy, Brandon, Josh, Tyler, George have all gotten thier shot. Josh probably would not start for any other team in the NBA. Jim could have played his vets instead. Roy plays big minutes as does brandon. Now Tyler and George are getting signifigant minutes. I have no idea where you get the idea that he plays vets over younger guys "at all costs" - I think that is simply a false statement

False statement? Where have you been all this time when he was playing the veterans at any cost? Watson over AJ? Maybe? How about TJ over AJ? Or Posey over Josh or Tyler? Whoever say that Jim doesn't prefer to play a veteran over a young player is clueless or is in denial.

Day-V
01-16-2011, 11:40 PM
not always. many times playing to lose offers you greater success in the future.

Damn you, lol.

xBulletproof
01-16-2011, 11:45 PM
I really, really, really wish I had my hands on a picture of James Posey guarding (or at least trying to..) Amare Stoudamire.

This was my turning point on Jim O'Brien. I was annoyed when he had Posey on Josh Smith ... but Amare? Really? I was done. This picture summed up how Amare got those last 6 points that won them the game.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/ap/f0/fullj.4de11839bbec3d2df52bc793b769c47d/ap-1490928b07b2454696460013b8725f2c.jpg

vnzla81
01-16-2011, 11:45 PM
Beats the hell out of "Playing to lose".

Again I gave my explanation about what "playing to win" means, is not about tanking or losing, is about playing the young guys over the old ones. Like I said before many people here say that playing the veterans is "playing to win".

hoops_guy
01-16-2011, 11:47 PM
OK, so we are back to the everything bad is Jim and everything good is someone else.

Heavens no. I think it is great that Jim is increasing Collison's role (albeit it could have happened a long time ago), and the sooner we go away from Hibbert the better. And it's also great that Foster has gotten more minutes.

But back to Hansbrough and George. So all of a sudden he goes from that pitifully coached fourth quarter against the Knicks where he puts both Solomon and Posey on Stoudemire before Josh, Roy, and Tyler to finally playing Paul George 20 minutes a game and Hansbrough around 30 and "trusting" them? No way. He's still the same Jim, and someone had to make him play George and Hansbrough while making AJ and Lance active.

It was an overnight thing right after that Knicks game. Coincidence? I think not.

Day-V
01-16-2011, 11:48 PM
Again I gave my explanation about what "playing to win" means, is not about tanking or losing, is about playing the young guys over the old ones. Like I said before many people here say that playing the veterans is "playing to win".

See, this is what I get for not reading things.

vnzla81
01-16-2011, 11:48 PM
This was my turning point on Jim O'Brien. I was annoyed when he had Posey on Josh Smith ... but Amare? Really? I was done.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/ap/f0/fullj.4de11839bbec3d2df52bc793b769c47d/ap-1490928b07b2454696460013b8725f2c.jpg

Nice, I'm glad I didn't get to watch that game, his amazing defense shows on that picture :laugh:

flox
01-16-2011, 11:49 PM
This was my turning point on Jim O'Brien. I was annoyed when he had Posey on Josh Smith ... but Amare? Really? I was done. This picture summed up how Amare got those last 6 points that won them the game.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/ap/f0/fullj.4de11839bbec3d2df52bc793b769c47d/ap-1490928b07b2454696460013b8725f2c.jpg

There is no other option to guard Amare at that point.

Unclebuck
01-16-2011, 11:51 PM
False statement? Where have you been all this time when he was playing the veterans at any cost? Watson over AJ? Maybe? How about TJ over AJ? Or Posey over Josh or Tyler? Whoever say that Jim doesn't prefer to play a veteran over a young player is clueless or is in denial.

If you and others want to say that Jim has played the vets over the youngsters more than you like - OK, that is fair, but it is the "at all costs" that I have a problem with because I think by any objective measure that simply isn't true

vnzla81
01-16-2011, 11:54 PM
There is no other option to guard Amare at that point.

And that is the excuse? :bs:

hoops_guy
01-16-2011, 11:55 PM
Heavens no. I think it is great that Jim is increasing Collison's role (albeit it could have happened a long time ago), and the sooner we go away from Hibbert the better. And it's also great that Foster has gotten more minutes.

But back to Hansbrough and George. So all of a sudden he goes from that pitifully coached fourth quarter against the Knicks where he puts both Solomon and Posey on Stoudemire before Josh, Roy, and Tyler to finally playing Paul George 20 minutes a game and Hansbrough around 30 and "trusting" them? No way. He's still the same Jim, and someone had to make him play George and Hansbrough while making AJ and Lance active.

It was an overnight thing right after that Knicks game. Coincidence? I think not.

UB, I really hope that you are not disregarding this post.

Hicks
01-16-2011, 11:56 PM
There is no other option to guard Amare at that point.

The hell there isn't.

flox
01-16-2011, 11:57 PM
Heavens no. I think it is great that Jim is increasing Collison's role (albeit it could have happened a long time ago), and the sooner we go away from Hibbert the better. And it's also great that Foster has gotten more minutes.

But back to Hansbrough and George. So all of a sudden he goes from that pitifully coached fourth quarter against the Knicks where he puts both Solomon and Posey on Stoudemire before Josh, Roy, and Tyler to finally playing Paul George 20 minutes a game and Hansbrough around 30 and "trusting" them? No way. He's still the same Jim, and someone had to make him play George and Hansbrough while making AJ and Lance active.

It was an overnight thing right after that Knicks game. Coincidence? I think not.

Or- it could be a long standing history of where Janurary is when O'Brien makes adjustments and plays rookies.

Or you could have your theory.


And that is the excuse? :bs:

I don't trust anyone else on the roster to guard Amare at that point.

flox
01-16-2011, 11:58 PM
The hell there isn't.

Who would you have in to guard him that isn't Foster (fouled out)

Hicks
01-16-2011, 11:59 PM
Who would you have in to guard him that isn't Foster (fouled out)

I believe Roy, Josh, and Tyler had yet to foul out. Any of them is preferable to Posey in that instance.

flox
01-16-2011, 11:59 PM
I believe Roy, Josh, and Tyler had yet to foul out. Any of them is preferable to Posey in that instance.

Not at all. Can't defend without fouling.

hoops_guy
01-16-2011, 11:59 PM
Yeah, I mean come on. Foster fouled out but Hibbert, Josh, Granger, Solomon, Hansbrough and arguably Rush and George were better options than Posey. Posey had absolutely no chance to guard him. Jim put his tail between his legs and folded there. Grabbed his security blankie and he was out.

And maybe Josh, Hans, and Hibbert would have fouled, but at least they wouldn't have gotten sodomized like Posey did.

vnzla81
01-17-2011, 12:01 AM
If you and others want to say that Jim has played the vets over the youngsters more than you like - OK, that is fair, but it is the "at all costs" that I have a problem with because I think by any objective measure that simply isn't true

I think that we keep saying "at any cost" is because that even if the team keeps losing he plays the vets big minutes and even if the team is out of the playoffs picture, he still plays the vets big minutes, I think this is the meaning of "at any cost".

Day-V
01-17-2011, 12:03 AM
Not at all. Can't defend without fouling.

So Posey Matador-ing it against Amare is the better option?

xBulletproof
01-17-2011, 12:03 AM
There is no other option to guard Amare at that point.

Foster fouled out. Tyler, McRoberts and Hibbert were on the bench.

Not to mention Soloman Jones was the one subbed in. You could have put Posey on Turiaf and let Solo guard Amare. At least he's tall enough to bother his jump shots. Nobody is going to have the strength anyway. At least take something away from him. Instead he let Posey guard him who can't bother his jumper, or match his strength. And Amare did both. A jumper and 2 post ups which is where this embarrassing picture came from. 6 points in 1 and a half minutes. :(

There was 1 better option on the floor at the time. 3 of them on the bench.

Trophy
01-17-2011, 12:03 AM
There is no other option to guard Amare at that point.

At least Tyler, Roy, or Josh would've put a body on him.

Posey is way too short to guard one of the most powerful big men in the league.

Jim probably thought we were trailing by too much so he waves the white flag and hopes for Posey, Danny, and Mike to make 3's to get us back into the game. Not even caring about the 2-4 positions anymore.

LA_Confidential
01-17-2011, 12:04 AM
I Know this is a free country but its saddening to see people actually making a case for the boneheaded decisions JOB makes.

IUfan4life
01-17-2011, 12:04 AM
this thread seems a couple weeks late

LA_Confidential
01-17-2011, 12:05 AM
this thread seems a couple years late

fixed.

flox
01-17-2011, 12:06 AM
Ok, so in that situation- fouling him is not good. You put a 78% shooter on the line. The expected value out of that is 60.84% of the time, he gets 2 points. 34.32% of the time, he gets 1 point. 4.84% of the time, he gets no points.

This is assuming no and 1 situation. Including and 1 situations, I don't really know how to calculate that- I would assume I would have to look at draw foul rate.

In the situation where he takes his normal shooting percentage, you get him scoring 2 points 50.2% of the time, 48.8% of the time he gets no points.

hoops_guy
01-17-2011, 12:07 AM
Flox, in this instance I think you are thinking way too hard.

flox
01-17-2011, 12:08 AM
Flox, in this instance I think you are thinking way too hard.

No, its how I always think.

When playing defense- don't foul- unless the opponent is clearly going to score. I decided to use numbers in that case.

xBulletproof
01-17-2011, 12:10 AM
In the situation where he takes his normal shooting percentage, you get him scoring 2 points 50.2% of the time, 48.8% of the time he gets no points.

I would argue quite heartily that if Amare was guarded by Posey all the time, he'd probably shoot 65% from the field.

;)

hoops_guy
01-17-2011, 12:10 AM
No, its how I always think.

When playing defense- don't foul- unless the opponent is clearly going to score. I decided to use numbers in that case.

But why are you assuming that there is a 100% chance that Roy, Josh, Hansbrough, or Solo foul Amare while assuming that there is a 0% chance Posey fouls Amare? Can you please elaborate?

Day-V
01-17-2011, 12:10 AM
When playing defense- don't foul- unless the opponent is clearly going to score.


By that logic, shouldn't Posey have been been hacking at Amare IMMEDIATELY once he touched the ball?

flox
01-17-2011, 12:11 AM
Yeah, I mean come on. Foster fouled out but Hibbert, Josh, Granger, Solomon, Hansbrough and arguably Rush and George were better options than Posey. Posey had absolutely no chance to guard him. Jim put his tail between his legs and folded there. Grabbed his security blankie and he was out.

And maybe Josh, Hans, and Hibbert would have fouled, but at least they wouldn't have gotten sodomized like Posey did.


So Posey Matador-ing it against Amare is the better option?


Foster fouled out. Tyler, McRoberts and Hibbert were on the bench.

Not to mention Soloman Jones was the one subbed in. You could have put Posey on Turiaf and let Solo guard Amare. At least he's tall enough to bother his jump shots. Nobody is going to have the strength anyway. At least take something away from him. Instead he let Posey guard him who can't bother his jumper, or match his strength. And Amare did both. A jumper and 2 post ups which is where this embarrassing picture came from. 6 points in 1 and a half minutes. :(

There was 1 better option on the floor at the time. 3 of them on the bench.


This is all true. For me, its the risk reward. I don't trust Jones, McRoberts, Hibbert, or Hans to get veteran leeway defensively and I don't trust them to defend Amare without fouling.

As I've stated- the worse outcome is defending and fouling- or fouling with And-1.

In this specific instance, I agree with Jim. In this specific instance, it didn't work. But it was the right move.

xBulletproof
01-17-2011, 12:13 AM
In this specific instance, I agree with Jim. In this specific instance, it didn't work. But it was the right move.

It didn't work against Josh Smith. Why the hell would it work against a stronger, but still very athletic Amare who's a better offensive player?

This isn't one time event, it's a recurring event. It never works, but he doesn't adjust either.

flox
01-17-2011, 12:14 AM
I would argue quite heartily that if Amare was guarded by Posey all the time, he'd probably shoot 65% from the field.

;)

Touche. This is possibly likely. Maybe, maybe not. Amare didn't miss. He could have missed. /shrug


But why are you assuming that there is a 100% chance that Roy, Josh, Hansbrough, or Solo foul Amare while assuming that there is a 0% chance Posey fouls Amare? Can you please elaborate?

That could be possibly true. But at that point, Posey has a less probability of fouling than than these other options. The other players aren't veterans, they probably can get called for a foul if amare puts his head down and charges straight into them. Amare is a mismatch already for most teams- and the last thing you want to do is send him to the line. The veterans will play the best defense without fouling- how many games have you seen Hans, Josh, Roy, and Solo being called for ticky tacky fouls that vets don't get called for as often?


By that logic, shouldn't Posey have been been hacking at Amare IMMEDIATELY once he touched the ball?

I actually laughed at this one.

flox
01-17-2011, 12:16 AM
It didn't work against Josh Smith. Why the hell would it work against a stronger, but still very athletic Amare who's a better offensive player?

This isn't one time event, it's a recurring event. It never works, but he doesn't adjust either.

To be fair, I don't trust our younger players guarding at all. I'd probably have Posey on him too.

hoops_guy
01-17-2011, 12:18 AM
That could be possibly true. But at that point, Posey has a less probability of fouling than than these other options. The other players aren't veterans, they probably can get called for a foul if amare puts his head down and charges straight into them. Amare is a mismatch already for most teams- and the last thing you want to do is send him to the line. The veterans will play the best defense without fouling- how many games have you seen Hans, Josh, Roy, and Solo being called for ticky tacky fouls that vets don't get called for as often?





I disagree with your approach, but I understand it and it makes sense. I would have gone a different route using athleticism and strength with some defensive instincts and awareness (Hans, Josh, or Roy) instead of using Posey which is almost all instincts and experience. But I get your point.

vnzla81
01-17-2011, 12:20 AM
To be fair, I don't trust our younger players guarding at all. I'd probably have Posey on him too.

Can you call guarding when somebody is letting the other guy score at will? Why no just play 4 against 5 and leave him open instead?

xBulletproof
01-17-2011, 12:22 AM
To be fair, I don't trust our younger players guarding at all. I'd probably have Posey on him too.

Josh Smith, maybe. Smith takes some bad shots and isn't the offensive player Amare is. On Amare I'd trust the guy most physically capable of defending him. That's clearly not Posey. At least then I could chalk that loss up as a learning opportunity for one of the young guys.

As is, we put a guy physically outmatched on one of the best front court players in the NBA. Even with his veteran advantages, I don't think the Posey that played with the Celtics could bother Amare.

flox
01-17-2011, 12:23 AM
I disagree with your approach, but I understand it and it makes sense. I would have gone a different route using athleticism and strength with some defensive instincts and awareness (Hans, Josh, or Roy) instead of using Posey which is almost all instincts and experience. But I get your point.

Thanks.

I just want to make clear that yes: I do understand why Josh or (defender here) is probably a better option from a pure defensive standpoint- but taking into consideration fouls and other things, I still think Posey is the right call. Defending without fouling in my opinion is very important.


Can you call guarding when somebody is letting the other guy score at will? Why no just play 4 against 5 and leave him open instead?

That would make success of 2 points nearly 100%. Why would you want to do that? A body in front of that lowers that percentage. Heck, a five foot guy with a broom held up high probably does the same thing.


Josh Smith, maybe. Smith takes some bad shots and isn't the offensive player Amare is. On Amare I'd trust the guy most physically capable of defending him. That's clearly not Posey. At least then I could chalk that loss up as a learning opportunity for one of the young guys.

As is, we put a guy physically outmatched on one of the best front court players in the NBA. Even with his veteran advantages, I don't think the Posey that played with the Celtics could bother Amare.

Agreed if we are talking about physically capable of defending. Disagreed if we are talking about defending without fouling. Fouling in my opinion is very bad there- it makes the game go more out of reach. And that also speaks to the lack of quality depth we have in the forward and big man spots as well.

Bball
01-17-2011, 01:10 AM
Thanks.

I just want to make clear that yes: I do understand why Josh or (defender here) is probably a better option from a pure defensive standpoint- but taking into consideration fouls and other things, I still think Posey is the right call. Defending without fouling in my opinion is very important.



But was what Posey was doing actually something you'd call 'defending'?

Hicks
01-17-2011, 01:10 AM
Not at all. Can't defend without fouling.

Nonsense.

Peck
01-17-2011, 01:53 AM
Ok, so in that situation- fouling him is not good. You put a 78% shooter on the line. The expected value out of that is 60.84% of the time, he gets 2 points. 34.32% of the time, he gets 1 point. 4.84% of the time, he gets no points.

This is assuming no and 1 situation. Including and 1 situations, I don't really know how to calculate that- I would assume I would have to look at draw foul rate.

In the situation where he takes his normal shooting percentage, you get him scoring 2 points 50.2% of the time, 48.8% of the time he gets no points.

This in my mind is exactly how O'Brien thinks. He knows the numbers and has probably calculated out every single scenario that he can concieve of to it's end result and he knows what player is likely to produce what result in any given situation.

At the end of the day Jim would be a person you would want to go play Black Jack with.

If you were running a fantasy basketball team you would want him as your consultant.

There are people that numbers are their religion (so to speak) and frankly unless you talk their language you are wasting your time even trying to have a conversation with them because all that they know all that they believe is the numbers. Didn't work, shrug it off because there was a probability for failure. Work like a charm, that was the plan.

I'm not saying that they are wrong I'm just saying they don't look at things like some of us do and they are incapable of seeing it any other way.

That is why Jim is so convinced that his system is the best. He knows the numbers and can prove it.

If you have ever heard him talk you always walk away going "yea, that makes sense".

But as Naptown Seth once said we can talk about how we should all walk on the ceiling so that we don't get the carpet dirty and make sense in doing so, doesn't make it right.

Here let's look at the Posey on Amare' thing from another angle.

Why is James Posey now considered a Power forward? Simple answer really, due to age and putting on a little weight he has slowed down and is no longer athletic enough to defend perimeter players because they are faster than him & can jump higher than him. I think we all agree to this.

Well certainly there are going to be power forwards that James can cover, however the same problem you have with the wings can be magnified 100 fold when you are dealing with an athletic young leaper at the 4 spot. James can NOT guard Amare' nor Josh Smith and he should not be placed in a position to have to do so. It's not fair to him.

CircleCity3318
01-17-2011, 02:07 AM
I don't understand this question. Why even play the game if your not trying to win? As a competitor you go out there and leave everything on the court and if you don't play that way then your team simply will not be anything greater than mediocre.

MaHa3000
01-17-2011, 02:08 AM
I'm with the group that thinks that patience is in order. If that group excists.

DaveP63
01-17-2011, 07:52 AM
Not at all. Can't defend without fouling.

Is there anybody on this team that can defend an elite player without fouling?

Unclebuck
01-17-2011, 09:07 AM
I Know this is a free country but its saddening to see people actually making a case for the boneheaded decisions JOB makes.

It is a free country (like that has anything to do with this discussion) but it is maddening to read people who say that Jim plays the vets "at all costs" when that isn't true.

The anti-O'Brien don't have the moral high ground as you are almost suggesting here.

beast23
01-17-2011, 11:16 AM
CircleCity3318:
I don't understand this question. Why even play the game if your not trying to win? As a competitor you go out there and leave everything on the court and if you don't play that way then your team simply will not be anything greater than mediocre.
Everytime that discussions such as this take place, this is exactly the point that I have always made. When the ball is tossed, from that point forward, you do everything you can to win the game. Period. To do less just doesn't honor the game and everything we have come to appreciate about sports. And, it doesn't show much character in those that play or coach the game to do anything less.


...it is maddening to read people who say that Jim plays the vets "at all costs" when that isn't true.

The anti-O'Brien don't have the moral high ground as you are almost suggesting here.

I think that it is unreasonable to believe that our coach is not doing everything possible to win a game from his perspective. This is not to say that his perspective and beliefs are right or wrong, it's just a statement that I believe that our coach does everything possible to win a game using the facts as he believes them.

Really, if you have read Peck's post above, this is merely a restatement of what Peck has already said. And I think it plays into what Buck has stated all along: Our coach does not choose vets over youngsters or youngsters over vets, black over white or white over black, or short over tall or tall over short, he simply plays the players that he believes will enable the team to win the game... from his perspective.

Personally, I've begun to shift a little on my own interpretation of the statement that you always play a game to win. I suppose having a team full of young players will do that to you. That, and going to a few college baseball games to watch your nephew, a freshman, pitch "varsity" for a Division II team always near the top of the national rankings.

My nephew is only one of two freshmen out of 12 freshmen chosen to play for his university. In a game last season, his first appearance, he subbed in to start the 6th innning ahead 3-1 and walked the first three batters on 12 pitches. Not exactly a stellar performance for a young man whose forte is control.

His head coach and pitching coach walked out and my nephew was prepared for his walk of shame back to the bullpen. His coach looked at him and let him know that it was some predicament that he pitched his team into, asked him how he was feeling and so forth. Then he told my nephew that he had a great opportunity in front of him. He could do what was easy and just fold, or he could dig down deep and solve the problem. After my nephew stated that it was his mess and he would take care of it, the coach looked at him and told him it was time to unpucker his rear, stop thinking he was going to strike out each batter, throw strikes and trust his teammates. After a fielder's choice, a strike out and a pop up, he was out of the inning after giving up only one run.

My nephew said the coach told him between innings that he wouldn't have taken that course of action with all of his pitchers, but in my nephew's case yanking him would have taught him nothing; that it would only harm my nephew's self-confidence and demonstrate that his coach didn't have any faith in him to work his way out of a jam.

I learned a lot that day. This is a great college team, full of teammates with high expectations. They expect to win and they play to win every game they play.

But they also have a coach who is tough on his players but also knows that the continued success of his program is to find ways to develop younger players while they attempt to win every game. So, the coach takes the opportunity to provide his younger players with plenty of playing time throughout the season. And more importantly, he takes the time to communicate with them during play and shows confidence in them to play through their own mistakes, knowing and accepting that this tact will occassionally not work out and cost them a game or two.

Late last season, most of us thought the Pacers would have somewhere between a 4th and 7th choice in the draft before we began to win a few extra games. We weren't going to the playoffs, that ship had already sailed.

But, using the example of the baseball coach, we could have used those last 20 games to better develop our youth while still doing everything we could to win each game while playing our younger players more minutes each game. We probably would have lost a few more games, but TPTB and our coach would have known more about their younger players and those players would have grown a lot. And, we probably would have had a higher draft choice.

The use of young players does not mean that you are playing not to win, you always play to win.

This year, it's a little different. First of all, we have a chance to make the playoffs. Secondly, we will have plenty of cap space this summer. Thirdly, we have players and contracts that have decent value with other teams with which to trade.

We need to play to win but we also need to find time to play all players, even letting them play through their own mistakes, in order to maintain a constant and current perspective of their abilities to enable TPTB to make the best possible decisions in acquiring new players. The more you know your players, the more you know what skills need to be added to your team. This can be accomplished while still playing to win.

duke dynamite
01-17-2011, 12:44 PM
I'm sorry, but this thread makes me sick. The whole basis of competition is to display how better you are at something than someone else is. There is no point in fielding a team, player, car, or whatever just to be out there.

Jim O'Brien or the players' perceived deficiencies aside, you give it your all with whatever you have and hope for the best.

aaronb
01-17-2011, 12:49 PM
I'm sorry, but this thread makes me sick. The whole basis of competition is to display how better you are at something than someone else is. There is no point in fielding a team, player, car, or whatever just to be out there.

Jim O'Brien or the players' perceived deficiencies aside, you give it your all with whatever you have and hope for the best.


In theory that is absolutely correct. Unfortunately the way the NBA rules are set up. You are penalized for trying to be competitive with sub par talent.

All that winning 30-35 games really does, is increase the likelihood that you will be winning 30-35 again next year.

We don't have to like that particular fact. But ignoring or denying that fact is really counter productive.

vnzla81
01-17-2011, 12:53 PM
I'm sorry, but this thread makes me sick. The whole basis of competition is to display how better you are at something than someone else is. There is no point in fielding a team, player, car, or whatever just to be out there.

Jim O'Brien or the players' perceived deficiencies aside, you give it your all with whatever you have and hope for the best.

Again this is not about playing to lose or tanking, the question is about playing the old players instead of your young players that are part of the future, just like the Clippers and other teams are doing while having a similar record to the Pacers.

CableKC
01-17-2011, 01:06 PM
Again this is not about playing to lose or tanking, the question is about playing the old players instead of your young players that are part of the future, just like the Clippers and other teams are doing while having a similar record to the Pacers.
You should simply change the title to "Playing the Young Players as opposed to the Veteran Players"....your title has obviously led to many mis-understanding of the purpose of your initial post.

Hicks
01-17-2011, 01:07 PM
My take:

1. If you have a team that you think could even flirt with competing for a title, acquire and play as many vets as you can if they make you a better team.

2. If you do not have a team that you think could even flirt with competing for a title, don't go out of your way to acquire veteran players**, and give your youth a lot of burn in the name of experience/development, seeing what you have (or don't have) to help you make future personnel decisions, and for fan interest while they patiently wait through a lean stretch.

3. If you're in scenario #1, or scenario #2, either way, you play and coach to win each game.



**Not to say you want a team with 15 young players. Mentors are fine and probably necessary. But don't go get guys who are marginally better than the youth and play them ahead of guys who will eventually be better than them and will get there as fast as possible when they get more playing time. Worst case scenario, the young player exposes themselves as 'not going to cut it', and you can move on more quickly rather than waiting longer to see one way or the other.

duke dynamite
01-17-2011, 01:14 PM
Again this is not about playing to lose or tanking, the question is about playing the old players instead of your young players that are part of the future, just like the Clippers and other teams are doing while having a similar record to the Pacers.
The Clippers have sucked for over 20 years. I don't want to hear it.

And what makes everyone think our young core is going to grow into an Eastern Conference contender? Huh? I didn't think so.

You play to win, or don't play at all.

flox
01-17-2011, 01:20 PM
But was what Posey was doing actually something you'd call 'defending'?
Yes.


This in my mind is exactly how O'Brien thinks. He knows the numbers and has probably calculated out every single scenario that he can concieve of to it's end result and he knows what player is likely to produce what result in any given situation.

At the end of the day Jim would be a person you would want to go play Black Jack with.

If you were running a fantasy basketball team you would want him as your consultant.

There are people that numbers are their religion (so to speak) and frankly unless you talk their language you are wasting your time even trying to have a conversation with them because all that they know all that they believe is the numbers. Didn't work, shrug it off because there was a probability for failure. Work like a charm, that was the plan.

I'm not saying that they are wrong I'm just saying they don't look at things like some of us do and they are incapable of seeing it any other way.

That is why Jim is so convinced that his system is the best. He knows the numbers and can prove it.

If you have ever heard him talk you always walk away going "yea, that makes sense".

But as Naptown Seth once said we can talk about how we should all walk on the ceiling so that we don't get the carpet dirty and make sense in doing so, doesn't make it right.

Here let's look at the Posey on Amare' thing from another angle.

Why is James Posey now considered a Power forward? Simple answer really, due to age and putting on a little weight he has slowed down and is no longer athletic enough to defend perimeter players because they are faster than him & can jump higher than him. I think we all agree to this.

Well certainly there are going to be power forwards that James can cover, however the same problem you have with the wings can be magnified 100 fold when you are dealing with an athletic young leaper at the 4 spot. James can NOT guard Amare' nor Josh Smith and he should not be placed in a position to have to do so. It's not fair to him.

Ok, so that is true. But earlier this season, do you know what I saw? From the Spurs, Gregg Popovich put Bobby Simmons on Blake Griffin. I don't think what you are suggesting is unheard of in the NBA and won't be seen on a matchup to matchup basis. And in certain situations, it arises that you'll need someone like your 3/4 to guard the opponents athletic four.

Maybe that is why I could live with this. Because i've seen it on other teams, because I believe that fouling is the worst scenario, and because of the whole numbers = religion thingy.


Is there anybody on this team that can defend an elite player without fouling?

Granger if he's trying.

Hicks
01-17-2011, 01:25 PM
And what makes everyone think our young core is going to grow into an Eastern Conference contender? Huh? I didn't think so.

Now there's Pacer Pride! :laugh: ;)

Anyway, no one, absolutely no one, thinks Dunleavy, Ford, Posey, and Foster will be here the next time we're in the ECF.

With that said, who the hell knows if any of these guys will. But you CAN divide them into two categories, "Maybe" and "Absolutely not."

Now, it's also painfully obvious we're headed to another season with a win total in the 30's. That, obviously, is not a team worth getting excited about.

With THAT said, the least we could be doing is giving our youth as much burn as they can handle, to not only see what we have and give them experience, but to give the fans something more interesting to watch.

The only thing worse than a bad team is a bad team that is harder to watch than it needs to be.

duke dynamite
01-17-2011, 01:27 PM
Now there's Pacer Pride! :laugh: ;)

Anyway, no one, absolutely no one, thinks Dunleavy, Ford, Posey, and Foster will be here the next time we're in the ECF.

With that said, who the hell knows if any of these guys will. But you CAN divide them into two categories, "Maybe" and "Absolutely not."

Now, it's also painfully obvious we're headed to another season with a win total in the 30's. That, obviously, is not a team worth getting excited about.

With THAT said, the least we could be doing is giving our youth as much burn as they can handle, to not only see what we have and give them experience, but to give the fans something more interesting to watch.

The only thing worse than a bad team is a bad team that is harder to watch than it needs to be.

I honestly don't think anyone on our current roster will be a part of an ECF team in the future.

And I'm happy with Paul George's minutes and production lately. He and Hansbrough are getting plenty of minutes, I'm good with that. I guess all anyone should complain about it McRoberts' lack of PT, but oh well. Maybe Price, but I don't know.

Hicks
01-17-2011, 01:33 PM
Ok, so that is true. But earlier this season, do you know what I saw? From the Spurs, Gregg Popovich put Bobby Simmons on Blake Griffin.

:picard:

Really? You can't just leave it at Posey can't guard Amare, you have to resort to the "But HE did it TOO!" defense? That's just sad.


I don't think what you are suggesting is unheard of in the NBA and won't be seen on a matchup to matchup basis. And in certain situations, it arises that you'll need someone like your 3/4 to guard the opponents athletic four.

Maybe that is why I could live with this. Because i've seen it on other teams,

It's not a problem if the player in question can pull it off. Posey cannot. Defending Posey on Amare is just sad.


because I believe that fouling is the worst scenario, and because of the whole numbers = religion thingy.

I'm glad you admit that they are your religion. With that said, does the Book of Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher say anything about how often Josh, Tyler, and Roy foul out? Or even how often they foul compared to how often Posey fouls? Because unless the answer to the last question is a significant difference, you're wasting everyone's time with nonsense.

Hicks
01-17-2011, 01:36 PM
I honestly don't think anyone on our current roster will be a part of an ECF team in the future.

And I'm happy with Paul George's minutes and production lately. He and Hansbrough are getting plenty of minutes, I'm good with that. I guess all anyone should complain about it McRoberts' lack of PT, but oh well. Maybe Price, but I don't know.

So if you don't believe any of these guys are a part of a winning future, what do you care about? Is it just the tradition of rooting for a team you've made an unspoken pledge to? Being a fan for the sake of being a fan?

aaronb
01-17-2011, 01:49 PM
My take:

1. If you have a team that you think could even flirt with competing for a title, acquire and play as many vets as you can if they make you a better team.

2. If you do not have a team that you think could even flirt with competing for a title, don't go out of your way to acquire veteran players**, and give your youth a lot of burn in the name of experience/development, seeing what you have (or don't have) to help you make future personnel decisions, and for fan interest while they patiently wait through a lean stretch.

3. If you're in scenario #1, or scenario #2, either way, you play and coach to win each game.



**Not to say you want a team with 15 young players. Mentors are fine and probably necessary. But don't go get guys who are marginally better than the youth and play them ahead of guys who will eventually be better than them and will get there as fast as possible when they get more playing time. Worst case scenario, the young player exposes themselves as 'not going to cut it', and you can move on more quickly rather than waiting longer to see one way or the other.


I'd even take it a step further and say that:

1. If you think you have a squad that can be a top 4 seed in your conference. Then you are a reasonable contender and you should do what is needed to improve your squad.

2. If you don't REASONABLY have that much talent to be a top 4 seed on your roster. Then you need to move the veteran assets that you do have for assets you can collect in the future. (future draft picks, young prospect players, cap space if needed)


Item 2 is especially important if you are a small market team like the Pacers are. It's not realistic to expect us to be a free agent destination. It's not really realistic to expect to "win" talent wise with every trade.

So what the Pacers plan SHOULD be is to stockpile a lot of young assets and shoot for a 5 year window to really be competitive. I think the local fans would much rather appreciate 5 year peaks and valleys over 10 years of complete mediocrity?

vnzla81
01-17-2011, 02:18 PM
You should simply change the title to "Playing the Young Players as opposed to the Veteran Players"....your title has obviously led to many mis-understanding of the purpose of your initial post.

I agree, the issue here is that those that use the term "play to win" use it to justify many of JOB maneuvers, is not only about playing the vets over the young, maybe the guys that use this term could explain to us what does it mean to them. (yes I'm looking at you Flox and Bill's ;))

flox
01-17-2011, 02:20 PM
:picard:

Really? You can't just leave it at Posey can't guard Amare, you have to resort to the "But HE did it TOO!" defense? That's just sad.



It's not a problem if the player in question can pull it off. Posey cannot. Defending Posey on Amare is just sad.

Sure, call it sad, call it sad squared, call it nonsense, call it more boring than watching a kitten nap, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that it occurs in the NBA. Call that a "he did it too defense". I'm fine with that. If other teams are doing something that your team is doing, either they are all wrong or it's some sort of trend in the NBA, or other things are happening. Defending Simmions on Griffin is sad too. That's a perfectly logical way of looking at it, if you want to believe that.

I'm still going to post that it was a good move. The data suggests it was right. The situation suggests it was right. You don't want to foul there. You're better off letting Amare shoot. The ball isn't going to anyone else. If you double, he's probably going to pass for an open three. If you put someone else on him, he's probably going to draw a foul on them. Assuming Posey still has that "clutch' reputation, he will most likely not be called for fouls in crunch time as lets say, Josh would.

You can call it a "he did it too defense". Sure. That's accurate. But if other teams are doing it, I'm definitely going to bring it up.



I'm glad you admit that they are your religion. With that said, does the Book of Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher say anything about how often Josh, Tyler, and Roy foul out? Or even how often they foul compared to how often Posey fouls? Because unless the answer to the last question is a significant difference, you're wasting everyone's time with nonsense.

Hibbert:3.8
Posey: 4.2
McRoberts: 4.6
Tyler: 4.7
Foster: 5.5
Jones: 6.1

Depends on what you call a significant difference. And the data suggests that Hibbert has the lowest foul rate among the players you requested, and overall.

Posey is the best option out of the remaining power forwards.
Hibbert is the best option overall among "bigs".

pacer4ever
01-17-2011, 02:22 PM
Sure, call it sad, call it sad squared, call it nonsense, call it more boring than watching a kitten nap, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that it occurs in the NBA. Call that a "he did it too defense". I'm fine with that. If other teams are doing something that your team is doing, either they are all wrong or it's some sort of trend in the NBA, or other things are happening. Defending Simmions on Griffin is sad too. That's a perfectly logical way of looking at it, if you want to believe that.

I'm still going to post that it was a good move. The data suggests it was right. The situation suggests it was right. You don't want to foul there. You're better off letting Amare shoot. The ball isn't going to anyone else. If you double, he's probably going to pass for an open three. If you put someone else on him, he's probably going to draw a foul on them. Assuming Posey still has that "clutch' reputation, he will most likely not be called for fouls in crunch time as lets say, Josh would.

You can call it a "he did it too defense". Sure. That's accurate. But if other teams are doing it, I'm definitely going to bring it up.



Hibbert:3.8
Posey: 4.2
McRoberts: 4.6
Tyler: 4.7
Foster: 5.5
Jones: 6.1

Depends on what you call a significant difference. And the data suggests that Hibbert has the lowest foul rate among the players you requested, and overall.

Posey is the best option out of the remaining power forwards.
Hibbert is the best option overall among "bigs".

:bs:

flox
01-17-2011, 02:26 PM
I'd even take it a step further and say that:

1. If you think you have a squad that can be a top 4 seed in your conference. Then you are a reasonable contender and you should do what is needed to improve your squad.

2. If you don't REASONABLY have that much talent to be a top 4 seed on your roster. Then you need to move the veteran assets that you do have for assets you can collect in the future. (future draft picks, young prospect players, cap space if needed)

Out of curiousity, doesn't that mean that seeds 5-8 would also be teams who are trying to move veterans (like we have) for assets (like we have), and we aren't in the top 4 seeds, and yet we can still be in seeds 5-8 (which we most likely will be).


I agree, the issue here is that those that use the term "play to win" use it to justify many of JOB maneuvers, is not only about playing the vets over the young, maybe the guys that use this term could explain to us what does it mean to them. (yes I'm looking at you Flox and Bill's ;))

You play to win the game.

flox
01-17-2011, 02:28 PM
:bs:

The gaiety derived from your post exceeded my self-control tolerances, good sir! You are to be applauded for your efforts!

vnzla81
01-17-2011, 02:31 PM
Out of curiousity, doesn't that mean that seeds 5-8 would also be teams who are trying to move veterans (like we have) for assets (like we have), and we aren't in the top 4 seeds, and yet we can still be in seeds 5-8 (which we most likely will be).



You play to win the game.

Can you explain what do you mean by "playing to win the game" and why do you use the term?

pacer4ever
01-17-2011, 02:32 PM
The gaiety derived from your post exceeded my self-control tolerances, good sir! You are to be applauded for your efforts!

Backing Posey on Amare is utter BS. There is no excuss for having Posey guard Amare. Then saying so he doesnt foul?? WTF Amare can just shoot right over Posey and he can also back him down.

Sookie
01-17-2011, 02:35 PM
Backing Posey on Amare is utter BS. There is no excuss for having Posey guard Amare. Then saying so he doesnt foul?? WTF Amare can just shoot right over Posey and he can also back him down.

Seriously...if you can't guard a post player..you darn well better foul them..hard. So that they're shaken up and don't make a basket..

flox
01-17-2011, 02:38 PM
Can you explain what do you mean by "playing to win the game" and why do you use the term?

You: one; anyone; people in general
Play: the playing, action, or conduct of a game
To: (used for expressing aim, purpose, or intention)
Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary: The home team won.
The: (used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an )
Game: a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.


I use the term because I believe that when anyone is in the conduct of a game, the purpose or intention is to gain the victory and overcome the adversary team when it comes to a competitive activity involving skill, chance, and endurance on the part of two teams who play according to a set of rules.

Repeat that for 82 games in a season.

flox
01-17-2011, 02:42 PM
Backing Posey on Amare is utter BS. There is no excuss for having Posey guard Amare. Then saying so he doesnt foul?? WTF Amare can just shoot right over Posey and he can also back him down.
Thank you for making a much more constructive post. I'm glad you got the message.

And sure, Amare can shoot right over Posey and back him down. That doesn't mean Posey still isn't guarding Amare. That doesn't mean Posey isn't a body on Amare that has a less likely chance to foul.


Seriously...if you can't guard a post player..you darn well better foul them..hard. So that they're shaken up and don't make a basket..

I mean sure, if you are into that kind of stuff. I'm not sure if that can be sustained in a long part of the game and you are basically giving them free points, or at least a very high likely hood at at least getting production, but if thats what you think is the best course of action so be it. I don't it's right, but it's logical. Foul to make the other team shaken up so that they can't make a basket.

pacer4ever
01-17-2011, 02:47 PM
You: one; anyone; people in general
Play: the playing, action, or conduct of a game
To: (used for expressing aim, purpose, or intention)
Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary: The home team won.
The: (used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an )
Game: a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.


I use the term because I believe that when anyone is in the conduct of a game, the purpose or intention is to gain the victory and overcome the adversary team when it comes to a competitive activity involving skill, chance, and endurance on the part of two teams who play according to a set of rules.

Repeat that for 82 games in a season.

You watch the Spurs right??? In the regular season the Spurs and many other teams just coast right trought it. All they care about is being healthy for the post season. They still play hard but limt mins and take nights off from time to time. We are in the oppsite boat of them we need to play the youth a lot and we need to play Hard every night and devlope our young team and let them grow together. We arent talking about tanking we are saying we need the youth to play more than the vets for sake of devlopement. Look at how TOR gives playing timeout. They still play to win but they are devlopeing and evaulating thier young talent at the same time. To see who they want to keep and who isnt part of thier future core.

flox
01-17-2011, 02:51 PM
You watch the Spurs right??? In the regular season the Spurs and many other teams just coast right trought it. All they care about is being healthy for the post season. They still play hard but limt mins and take nights off from time to time. We are in the oppsite boat of them we need to play the youth a lot and we need to play Hard every night and devlope our young team and let them grow together. We arent talking about tanking we are saying we need the youth to play more than the vets for sake of devlopement. Look at how TOR gives playing timeout. They still play to win but they are devlopeing and evaulating thier young talent at the same time. To see who they want to keep and who isnt part of thier future core.

I do watch the Spurs. They play to win every single game. When they know they can't win, they wave the white flag. I hate it, but I understand. The last known instance of them waving the white flag was against the Knicks.

The next instance will probably involve giving Duncan, Ginobili, or Parker the night off, after they have made the playoffs or something.

Toronto is not in a mode to make the playoffs. We are.

pacer4ever
01-17-2011, 02:52 PM
Thank you for making a much more constructive post. I'm glad you got the message.

And sure, Amare can shoot right over Posey and back him down. That doesn't mean Posey still isn't guarding Amare. That doesn't mean Posey isn't a body on Amare that has a less likely chance to foul.



.

You can't be serious Posey isnt able to guard Amare at this point in his career. The guy is just way to slow and unathletic to guard a basketball player like Amare. Maybe when Posey was Danny's age u might consider letting him guard that type of player but Posey's defense isn't what it once was. Now he is just an old 3pt shooter who can't guard a good 4 or a good 3. Again i dont blame Posey JOB shuld never put his player in a postion to fail.

vnzla81
01-17-2011, 02:58 PM
I do watch the Spurs. They play to win every single game. When they know they can't win, they wave the white flag. I hate it, but I understand. The last known instance of them waving the white flag was against the Knicks.

The next instance will probably involve giving Duncan, Ginobili, or Parker the night off, after they have made the playoffs or something.

Toronto is not in a mode to make the playoffs. We are.

Pacers got 16wins Toronto got 13, and both teams still have a chance to make it to the playoffs.

pacer4ever
01-17-2011, 03:03 PM
Pacers got 16wins Toronto got 13, and both teams have a chance to make it to the playoffs.

and Toronto brings it's vets off the bench Barbososa,Keliza,Peja. Caldron has only started 21 gms of the 34 he has played in

flox
01-17-2011, 03:07 PM
You can't be serious Posey isnt able to guard Amare at this point in his career. The guy is just way to slow and unathletic to guard a basketball player like Amare. Maybe when Posey was Danny's age u might consider letting him guard that type of player but Posey's defense isn't what it once was. Now he is just an old 3pt shooter who can't guard a good 4 or a good 3. Again i dont blame Posey JOB shuld never put his player in a postion to fail.

I agree with you if the sole criteria was "guard, defend the shot, and don't let him make the shot". Yes, Posey is an awful choice. I'm pretty sure i've admitted that. If not, I'm fully admitting that now.

However, I believe the criteria in that situation is "guard, put a body in front, do not let him draw a foul, and defend a shot".


Pacers got 16wins Toronto got 13, and both teams still have a chance to make it to the playoffs.

16-21, .432 win percentage
13-27, .325 win percentage.

Yeah I don't think so.

Sookie
01-17-2011, 03:11 PM
I mean sure, if you are into that kind of stuff. I'm not sure if that can be sustained in a long part of the game and you are basically giving them free points, or at least a very high likely hood at at least getting production, but if thats what you think is the best course of action so be it. I don't it's right, but it's logical. Foul to make the other team shaken up so that they can't make a basket.

So you just believe in giving teams the easy basket? I doubt Posey does.

aaronb
01-17-2011, 04:19 PM
Out of curiousity, doesn't that mean that seeds 5-8 would also be teams who are trying to move veterans (like we have) for assets (like we have), and we aren't in the top 4 seeds, and yet we can still be in seeds 5-8 (which we most likely will be).

You play to win the game.


Not every team with a realistic shot at a top 4 seed is going to end up with a top seed. For instance the following teams had reason to believe they could be top 4 seeds in the Eastern Conference:

Miami
Boston
Chicago
Orlando
Atlanta

And Milwaukee could have made a borderline case after last season's playoff run.

So in reality the Pacers goal was to hope the East was bad again and shoot for a 7th/8th seed. Except that we are shooting for this goal without having a very good foundation already in place (namely a Franchise player and possibly a franchise level #2 option).


Sure by trading Murphy for Collision we DID use a veteran to bring in a young asset. That was a very good trade that the Front office made. Unfortunately we just haven't made enough of those kinds of deals over the last several seasons. We've held onto assets like TJ Ford and Jeff Foster when they could have been spun for something useful. Just like Troy Murphy was.

flox
01-18-2011, 09:23 AM
So you just believe in giving teams the easy basket? I doubt Posey does.

I don't think Posey does either. But I don't ever remember this team committing in a hard foul to send a message. It doesn't happen outside of the (insert colorful term here) Celtics.


Not every team with a realistic shot at a top 4 seed is going to end up with a top seed. For instance the following teams had reason to believe they could be top 4 seeds in the Eastern Conference:

Miami
Boston
Chicago
Orlando
Atlanta

And Milwaukee could have made a borderline case after last season's playoff run.

So in reality the Pacers goal was to hope the East was bad again and shoot for a 7th/8th seed. Except that we are shooting for this goal without having a very good foundation already in place (namely a Franchise player and possibly a franchise level #2 option).


Sure by trading Murphy for Collision we DID use a veteran to bring in a young asset. That was a very good trade that the Front office made. Unfortunately we just haven't made enough of those kinds of deals over the last several seasons. We've held onto assets like TJ Ford and Jeff Foster when they could have been spun for something useful. Just like Troy Murphy was.

I have a strange feeling its a bit too early to say that we've held onto assets... although there was that trade with Denver for Foster that we should have done.

I think that, more than anything, speaks to what our team believes in.

Unclebuck
01-18-2011, 10:13 AM
UB, I really hope that you are not disregarding this post.

Did not disregard, but I commented on that last week.

Unclebuck
01-18-2011, 10:29 AM
I know many of you are too young to remember the years 1991 through 1993. I believe with all my mind that if 1991, 1992, 1993 didn't happen - no way 1994 ever comes close to happening. '91, '92, '93 were first round and outs. There was a lot of similar dicsussion about those teams as there is now. Why try and make the playoffs and get swept by the Celtics as we did in '92. What purpose does that serve? Why not lose and get into the lottery.

'91, '92 '93 were hugely important to players like Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Dale Davis (the core of the 1994 team) they needed the playoff experience, and yes the losing taught them what it took to win in the playoffs.

By making the playoffs three straight years it helped convince larry brown that this team was on the rise and worth his time coaching.

Teams don't go from 18 win teams to 55 win championship level team. it is a stairstepper approach. I always say you don't really know you can trust a player in the pkayoffs until they play in the playoffs. So in effect we don't know about Danny, Roy, brandon, darren, Tyler, George or any player on our team (except I suppose Jeff and james)

So if some of you want to lose and miss the playoff, lose and miss the playoffs. Unless you get extremely lucky (once in a franchises life-time lucky by getting a hall of famer) you will keep losing and missing the playoffs for years to come

aaronb
01-18-2011, 11:03 AM
I know many of you are too young to remember the years 1991 through 1993. I believe with all my mind that if 1991, 1992, 1993 didn't happen - no way 1994 ever comes close to happening. '91, '92, '93 were first round and outs. There was a lot of similar dicsussion about those teams as there is now. Why try and make the playoffs and get swept by the Celtics as we did in '92. What purpose does that serve? Why not lose and get into the lottery.

'91, '92 '93 were hugely important to players like Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Dale Davis (the core of the 1994 team) they needed the playoff experience, and yes the losing taught them what it took to win in the playoffs.

By making the playoffs three straight years it helped convince larry brown that this team was on the rise and worth his time coaching.

Teams don't go from 18 win teams to 55 win championship level team. it is a stairstepper approach. I always say you don't really know you can trust a player in the pkayoffs until they play in the playoffs. So in effect we don't know about Danny, Roy, brandon, darren, Tyler, George or any player on our team (except I suppose Jeff and james)

So if some of you want to lose and miss the playoff, lose and miss the playoffs. Unless you get extremely lucky (once in a franchises life-time lucky by getting a hall of famer) you will keep losing and missing the playoffs for years to come


I do vividly remember those teams. There was a major fundamental difference however with those squads and this current version.

Talent

That incarnation had a Chuck Person (#4 overall pick and ROY) who had that breakout playoff series against the Celtics (and the rifleman gimmick that followed). A developing Rik Smits (#2 overall pick). A Reggie Miller (with an all star appearance already on his resume) A Dale Davis in the late lotto who would be a force for years.

The NBA pundits of that time seemed to be of the opinion that the Pacers were an extremely talented young team. They just needed development (Which Larry Brown provided).

Do the current crop of NBA pundits ever talk about how talented this Pacers roster is? Does anyone outside of PD or the Indianapolis area think this is a loaded roster on the Brink?


I do totally agree with you that a team needs to playoff exposure to take the leap to true contender. However a team really needs to lay a foundation of talent before they can truly make that leap.

Unfortunately management took shortcuts instead of truly rebuilding. This is a flawed core with a really low ceiling. It will NEVER be what that 91-93 core was.

Unclebuck
01-18-2011, 11:11 AM
Talent

That incarnation had a Chuck Person (#4 overall pick and ROY) who had that breakout playoff series against the Celtics (and the rifleman gimmick that followed). A developing Rik Smits (#2 overall pick). A Reggie Miller (with an all star appearance already on his resume) A Dale Davis in the late lotto who would be a force for years.

The NBA pundits of that time seemed to be of the opinion that the Pacers were an extremely talented young team. They just needed development (Which Larry Brown provided).



I don't know about that. Granger has made the allstar team once just like Reggie had. I'll grant you that the 1992 team probably had more potential than this team "probably".

Go back and look at where the pacers were predicted to finish in 1994 by the pundits - borderline playoffs just like the previous 3 seasons. I don't thibnk anyone predicted the rise of the franchise in 1994. (obviously a new coach and some very important new players played a role)

BillS
01-18-2011, 11:12 AM
I agree, the issue here is that those that use the term "play to win" use it to justify many of JOB maneuvers, is not only about playing the vets over the young, maybe the guys that use this term could explain to us what does it mean to them. (yes I'm looking at you Flox and Bill's ;))

I believe that the coach's job is to put the best players on the floor and try to win every game. If there is room within that strategy to develop young players, fine.

Now, this has NOTHING TO DO with the discussion of whether fans believe a particular coach really is using the best players or is using the proper strategies. That's a question of competence and ability, not of attitude and direction. It may very well be that the "young guys" are better than the "vets" - if that is the case, the failure to play them is NOT because the coach is "playing to win" vs. "developing the young guys", it is because the coach doesn't see who is the best. Competence, not strategy.

The ONLY time I "use it to justify JOB's maneuvers" is to argue against playing youth for the sake of playing youth. You think the vets he is playing don't really give us the best chance to win, fine. HE does, and that's his job. You (and many others) may not agree with how he is DOING that job, but it doesn't change the fact that the job is to play the best players in the best combinations.

aaronb
01-18-2011, 11:25 AM
I don't know about that. Granger has made the allstar team once just like Reggie had. I'll grant you that the 1992 team probably had more potential than this team "probably".

Go back and look at where the pacers were predicted to finish in 1994 by the pundits - borderline playoffs just like the previous 3 seasons. I don't thibnk anyone predicted the rise of the franchise in 1994. (obviously a new coach and some very important new players played a role)


I specifically remember watching the draft when we took Dale Davis. All 3 guys on the Panel were talking about how much talent the Pacers were stockpiling. They were pegged as a young team on the rise. Which is exactly what they ended up doing.

Nobody really says that stuff nationally about this group.

Unclebuck
01-18-2011, 11:30 AM
I specifically remember watching the draft when we took Dale Davis. All 3 guys on the Panel were talking about how much talent the Pacers were stockpiling. They were pegged as a young team on the rise. Which is exactly what they ended up doing.



Yes, but that was just a couple of months after the pacers had taken the Celtics to 5 games in the first round of the '91 playoffs. After that in '92 the Celtics swept the Pacers in the first round rather easily - and a lot of the "good feelings" about the future were gone. Then in '93 lost to the Knicks 3-1 and there wasn't a whole lot of hope in fact talk of "blowing this team up" was common. Why do you think Chuch was traded for Pooh and Sam.

I think I have Conrad Brunner's book he wrote on the 1994 season it details some of the 1993 aftermath - things weren't that bright. Donnie Walsh was extremely close to not coming back. The owners wanted Rick Pitino to be GM and coach. Donnie had to do a hard sell to the Simon's about bringing in larry brown, they were not onboard at first. The team and franchise were at a crossroad

aaronb
01-18-2011, 11:37 AM
Yes, but that was just a couple of months after the pacers had taken the Celtics to 5 games in the first round of the '91 playoffs. After that in '92 the Celtics swept the Pacers in the first round rather easily - and a lot of the "good feelings" about the future were gone. Then in '93 lost to the Knicks 3-1 and there wasn't a whole lot of hope in fact talk of "blowing this team up" was common. Why do you think Chuch was traded for Pooh and Sam.

I think I have Conrad Brunner's book he wrote on the 1994 season it details some of the 1993 aftermath - things weren't that bright. Donnie Walsh was extremely close to not coming back. The owners wanted Rick Pitino to be GM and coach. Donnie had to do a hard sell to the Simon's about bringing in larry brown, they were not onboard at first. The team and franchise were at a crossroad


I wasn't aware of all that. I do remember positive local sentiment once Larry Brown was named the coach though.

I still say that the talent levels are MUCH different between those teams. I'd feel much better about the Granger, Hibbert, Collision core going forward if we had a #1 and #2 option above those guys.

Peck
01-18-2011, 11:38 AM
Yes, but that was just a couple of months after the pacers had taken the Celtics to 5 games in the first round of the '91 playoffs. After that in '92 the Celtics swept the Pacers in the first round rather easily - and a lot of the "good feelings" about the future were gone. Then in '93 lost to the Knicks 3-1 and there wasn't a whole lot of hope in fact talk of "blowing this team up" was common. Why do you think Chuch was traded for Pooh and Sam.
I think I have Conrad Brunner's book he wrote on the 1994 season it details some of the 1993 aftermath - things weren't that bright. Donnie Walsh was extremely close to not coming back. The owners wanted Rick Pitino to be GM and coach. Donnie had to do a hard sell to the Simon's about bringing in larry brown, they were not onboard at first. The team and franchise were at a crossroad

Well the fact that Chuck melted down on the locker room and shoved Dave Overpeck into a trash can didn't help matters any.

beast23
01-18-2011, 01:22 PM
I'd even take it a step further and say that:

1. If you think you have a squad that can be a top 4 seed in your conference. Then you are a reasonable contender and you should do what is needed to improve your squad.

2. If you don't REASONABLY have that much talent to be a top 4 seed on your roster. Then you need to move the veteran assets that you do have for assets you can collect in the future. (future draft picks, young prospect players, cap space if needed)


Item 2 is especially important if you are a small market team like the Pacers are. It's not realistic to expect us to be a free agent destination. It's not really realistic to expect to "win" talent wise with every trade.

So what the Pacers plan SHOULD be is to stockpile a lot of young assets and shoot for a 5 year window to really be competitive. I think the local fans would much rather appreciate 5 year peaks and valleys over 10 years of complete mediocrity?I think that this is just more "youngsters versus vets" dialog and is very short sighted.

I agree with your overall goal of getting better and not accepting the status quo. But it has nothing to do with dumping vets or stockpiling youngsters or even targeting 5 years out for that matter.


Instead, it has to do with targeting the type of player that will vastly improve your roster and analyzing what it will take from your assets to acquire such a player. What you are willing to trade should not be restricted to only your vets.


As an example, most don't see us able to acquire a top flight player through free agency. Possibly true, but we still need to proceed with trying. Without trying, by default you make it true. Since we will have the cap space, do you offer a player like Rush or George in a sign-and-trade along with a first round pick to acquire one of the best PFs in the league? Obtaining a player in that manner also acquires a huge trade exception.


If you want to be one of the top 4 teams in the East, NO ONE is untouchable.

dgranger17
01-18-2011, 01:35 PM
Thats what OKC did few yrs back when they traded Ray Allen.

Correction... that's what Seattle did a few years back.

aaronb
01-18-2011, 02:32 PM
I think that this is just more "youngsters versus vets" dialog and is very short sighted.

I agree with your overall goal of getting better and not accepting the status quo. But it has nothing to do with dumping vets or stockpiling youngsters or even targeting 5 years out for that matter.


Instead, it has to do with targeting the type of player that will vastly improve your roster and analyzing what it will take from your assets to acquire such a player. What you are willing to trade should not be restricted to only your vets.


As an example, most don't see us able to acquire a top flight player through free agency. Possibly true, but we still need to proceed with trying. Without trying, by default you make it true. Since we will have the cap space, do you offer a player like Rush or George in a sign-and-trade along with a first round pick to acquire one of the best PFs in the league? Obtaining a player in that manner also acquires a huge trade exception.


If you want to be one of the top 4 teams in the East, NO ONE is untouchable.

I totally agree that nobody should EVER be untouchable. I'd offer anyone on this Pacers roster if it made the future brighter.

My point isn't that you need to shoot to be competitive in 5 years. Its that you need to align your franchise assets in a way where you have a "Window" to be competitive. Once you are competitive then you stay competitive as long as you are able to. Standing pat, drafting 10-14 signing 1 or 2 eleventh roster spot guys every year isn't doing that.

pacer4ever
01-18-2011, 02:48 PM
Correction... that's what Seattle did a few years back.

They were leaving already stupid settle and owner couldnt agree to terms. What a shame seattle was a great b ball town

xBulletproof
01-18-2011, 03:08 PM
Buck, you're fighting a lost cause. I had the same debate with him before. There are a lot of similarities there. Problem is, for him it boils down to Donnie Walsh wouldn't have done anything wrong, and Larry Bird will never do anything right. So he'll find excuses on why there aren't similarities.

You'll just end up running in circles.

aaronb
01-18-2011, 03:21 PM
Buck, you're fighting a lost cause. I had the same debate with him before. There are a lot of similarities there. Problem is, for him it boils down to Donnie Walsh wouldn't have done anything wrong, and Larry Bird will never do anything right. So he'll find excuses on why there aren't similarities.

You'll just end up running in circles.


I haven't even mentioned Larry Bird's name? I could honestly care less who is making the moves in the Pacers front office. So long as those moves actually improve our lot as a franchise.

WHOEVER has been making the moves since 2004 has been a failure.