PDA

View Full Version : Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?



Psyren
01-21-2011, 01:39 PM
Eric Pincus
Hoopsworld.com
http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=18541


Are the Indiana Pacers a bad, good team or a good, bad team?

There's a difference, and unfortunately for Pacers fans, it appears to be the latter.

The way Indiana has played over the last few weeks, they may not deserve even that extra little bit of credit.

Despite their 16-23 record, the Pacers have won just seven of 23 games since the start of December. That's after a respectable 9-7 start that gave them enough padding to still hold onto the eight playoff spot despite their sub-standard play. It's stunning Indiana is even near a postseason berth but the once-hot Philadelphia 76ers have slowed and the Milwaukee Bucks are trying to get through an injury to point guard Brandon Jennings.

Otherwise, there isn't much competition down in the cellar of the Eastern Conference, and while the Pacers may not traditionally "deserve" a playoff appearance, they may get one due to attrition.

Leading the way is Danny Granger with his 21.5 points a game, down from last year's 24.1 (and the previous season's 25.8).

Indiana has five players averaging double figures but all are under 15 a night and closer to 10 (Darren Collison, Roy Hibbert, Brandon Rush and Mike Dunleavy). Hibbert, in particular, has slowed considerably after a mostly impressive November, an inconsistent December and a poor January in which he's averaged 7.3 points a game. Neither Tyler Hansbrough nor Josh McRoberts has been able to pick up the slack inside as a starting power forward. Earlier in the year, the starts went to McRoberts but more recently it's been Hansbrough as Coach Jim O'Brien looks for a combination that will work.

Over the past two months, the Pacers have looked worse than last year's team that won just 32 games.

"We've certainly played at a lower tempo to start this year," said O'Brien. "You can see it from point production. It's because we traded Troy Murphy so with a bigger lineup, we're not able to space the court as much. We're trying to bring Hibbert and Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts along as big players. We're going more to a smaller lineup now to space the court so we can be a little bit more difficult to guard. We still want to try to score in six seconds if we could but we're not willing to take a bad shot or give that up. Then we try to have a balance of inside/outside but frankly we're struggling with our post game so we need to go outside."

That's mean more time with Granger (6'8", 228 pounds) at the four.

"We were not playing Danny Granger any at the power forward spot up until about two weeks ago. That was our best lineup last year. We tried to be more of a traditional team with a big lineup," said O'Brien. "So we're still starting what you would consider a traditional lineup with a center and a power forward but at different times in a game in both halves you're going to see a pretty decent amount of minutes where you have Granger, point guard, center and two wings that can space the court and shoot the three."

Granger in a power position can be a double-edged sword.

"They have a lot of shooters. Danny Granger is a very difficult cover," said Del Negro on Monday when the Pacers visited the Los Angeles Clipper. "They run some good stuff . . . they spread you out."

Of course, it has its drawbacks defensively. Rookie Blake Griffin dropped 47 points on the Pacers, although Granger was rarely matched up against the Clipper star. Veteran Jeff Foster seemed to take the most minutes (and punishment) against Blake.

Danny doesn't think it hurts the team defensively when the Pacers go small.

"No matter how big they are, you get to their legs and push them so they can't jump," said Granger. "It just gives us a different look I think on the offensive end. When you go small, teams change their lineups. I think it's just a coaching strategy that [we] use just to switch things up a little bit."

The team hopes that moving Granger to the four will help to get more out of point guard Darren Collison, who is averaging just 4.7 assists per game.

"It opens up the game for Collison. It opens up the game for Granger when you have a center or power forward who can't space the court, there's really no driving opportunities there. The middle is not open," said O'Brien. "So we're trying to attempt to open up the middle, so when somebody is playing Granger or Collison and they know they have two teammates waiting in the paint for them and they can under their chin and make life difficult for them. When you can't do that, and you space the court, it opens up the court for the perimeter guys."

Collison said he sees a difference.

"It helps my game because you have another shooter on the court. [Granger's] ability to score the ball helps stretch the court out a little bit more," said Collison. "Any time I'm coming off pick and rolls, you don't want to leave him and if you do, I can set him up for a jump shot."

Darren doesn't want to point fingers, remaining protective of current starter Hansbrough.

"Tyler's coming along. He can hit that 15-foot jump shot. Any time he can hit that 15-foot jump shot, it's just like there's another shooter on the court," said Collison. "The difference between him and Danny is that Danny can hit the three-ball. It's more physical. It's more of a team thing when Tyler's in the lineup, he can rebound. He's explosive. Either way you want to go, it doesn't matter."

Despite the team's poor play recently, Collison has felt better about his game.

"Yeah. I feel like I'm getting a lot more comfortable," said Darren. "Especially running more pick and rolls in the system."

Against the Clippers, Collison scored a season-high 30 points. In Philadelphia a week prior, he dropped 13 assists along 21 points.

Through January, he's averaged 17.4 points a game and 6.4 assists.

Granger said he still thinks the Pacers can make the playoffs but they need to improve significantly.

"We need to establish a more consistent offensive flow for our game. We're really sporadic right now," said Granger. "Some games we shoot well. Most games we don't. That has to change for us to be in the playoffs."

The issue goes on just playing hard or well.

"Chemistry. Teams chemistry," said Granger. "We've just got to learn to play with each other better."

Unfortunately for the Pacers, it's not on the players. It's not on O'Brien, who more than one opposing coach has called privately "a difficult guy to go up against."

It's the player personnel department that hasn't done enough. Perhaps the blame falls on the shoulders of President of Basketball Operations Larry Bird or even former President Donnie Walsh, but the franchise is still trying to get through the rebuilding process from the Jermaine O'Neal, Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson era.

The team will finally get out of their salary cap jam after this season after taking on the bloated contracts of Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Troy Murphy. Murphy has already been flipped for Collison and Dunleavy is expiring after this season.

Rebooting a franchise is rarely pretty.

The team will finally have financial flexibility but do they have the right building blocks in place to move forward?

Granger will be 28 years old in April. Collison represents the future with Hibbert, but the center's recent decline is certainly a concern.

Rookie Paul George hasn't had a strong year so far but he's loaded with potential. Both Hansbrough and McRoberts still have a lot to prove. Brandon Rush is somewhat solid, somewhat inconsistent.

The path for the team to take moving forward isn't clear. Granger will get $13 million a year for the next three seasons but looking at the team's prospects over the season or two, can they piece something viable together before Danny hits 30?

It may be time to consider trading Granger, "franchise player" or not, for additional assets in the same age range as Collison and Hibbert (both around 24/25).

The Pacers never fully embraced the rebuild. Now may be the time.

Indiana has plenty of expiring contracts to deal but there's no point in wasting that flexibility on veterans with multi-year deals just to make a token playoff appearance.

The youth movement is the way to go.

Instead, the team should look to use their $25.7 million in expiring contracts to try and get out of James Posey's extra year at $7.6 million, Dahntay Jones' two additional seasons at about $2.8 million each - while bringing in some a few more kids and/or draft considerations.

Trading Murphy for Collison was a step in the right direction.

Attendance at Pacer games has been poor, so keeping the fans in the seats can't and shouldn't be the top short-term priority.

It's time for Bird and management to do the real work of putting together a solid, youthful core and letting that winning chemistry happen organically . . . even if that means giving up on the current face of the franchise in Granger.

Hicks
01-21-2011, 02:03 PM
This is the second time I've seen reference (the first was on the Clippers broadcast) to Jim having a "Six seconds or less" offense.

He literally preaches a faster-shooting offense than Mike D'Antoni. Somehow, that's fitting, I think.

No wonder we take bad shots.

Hicks
01-21-2011, 02:06 PM
By the way, can anyone elaborate on this?



"No matter how big they are, you get to their legs and push them so they can't jump," said Granger.

vnzla81
01-21-2011, 02:11 PM
This is the second time I've seen reference (the first was on the Clippers broadcast) to Jim having a "Six seconds or less" offense.

He literally preaches a faster-shooting offense than Mike D'Antoni. Somehow, that's fitting, I think.

No wonder we take bad shots.

He is been saying this forever, I remember when he was hired and was talking about this.

pacergod2
01-21-2011, 02:15 PM
By the way, can anyone elaborate on this?

It is the same reason why Charles Barkley was so good. Same with guys like Blair. They have big strong bodies but are lower in their center of gravity and can push bigger guys out of the way. I grew up going one on one with my bigger cousins and friends and had to learn how to guard them in the post. It is about staying low and getting leverage in your force against them. It is the foundation for man-to-man post defense. And it helps to clear taller players in boxing out as well.

graphic-er
01-21-2011, 02:19 PM
This is the second time I've seen reference (the first was on the Clippers broadcast) to Jim having a "Six seconds or less" offense.

He literally preaches a faster-shooting offense than Mike D'Antoni. Somehow, that's fitting, I think.

No wonder we take bad shots.

This is the stupidest coaching philosophy I have ever heard. No wonder we are only a 32 win team, no wonder we have no ability to create a shot in the tough possessions late in the 4th. No wonder we always tire out in the 4th and give up double digit leads. We play defense for 24 seconds and offense for 6. Freaking Brilliant JOB.

vnzla81
01-21-2011, 02:20 PM
By the way I can't wait for the day we can stop hearing about stretching the floor :puke:

BPump33
01-21-2011, 02:23 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36554/nba-with-ric-bucher

Ric Bucher's chat on ESPN:

Matt (Indy)

The Pacers have some expiring contracts, as well as young, talented pieces. What do you see them doing at the trade deadline? Who will they move and what kind of players will they be looking to receive?
Ric Bucher (1:19 PM)

What is this young talent that you speak of?


Ouch.

graphic-er
01-21-2011, 02:25 PM
This is like those handful of division 2 college coaches want nothing but 3pters.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 02:28 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36554/nba-with-ric-bucher

Ric Bucher's chat on ESPN:

Matt (Indy)

The Pacers have some expiring contracts, as well as young, talented pieces. What do you see them doing at the trade deadline? Who will they move and what kind of players will they be looking to receive?
Ric Bucher (1:19 PM)

What is this young talent that you speak of?

____________________________________________

Ouch.

How many times do we have to read national unbiased experts tell us that our young players are not that talented before some of you actually start believing it.


Onto the 6 seconds or less thing. Jim doesn't want bad shots taken within 6 seconds, but sure if you have a good shot take it when you have it. Nothing really wrong with that.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 02:28 PM
This is like those handful of division 2 college coaches want nothing but 3pters.

How so?

Since86
01-21-2011, 02:29 PM
This is like those handful of division 2 college coaches want nothing but 3pters.

No, this is worse. You can get by with that in college, because you can handpick your players to fit your system. Jim is trying to fit round holes with square pegs.

PR07
01-21-2011, 02:30 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36554/nba-with-ric-bucher

Ric Bucher's chat on ESPN:

Matt (Indy)

The Pacers have some expiring contracts, as well as young, talented pieces. What do you see them doing at the trade deadline? Who will they move and what kind of players will they be looking to receive?
Ric Bucher (1:19 PM)

What is this young talent that you speak of?

____________________________________________

Ouch.

That seems like a really immature comment by Bucher.

Since86
01-21-2011, 02:32 PM
How many times do we have to read national unbiased experts tell us that our young players are not that talented before some of you actually start believing it.


Onto the 6 seconds or less thing. Jim doesn't want bad shots taken within 6 seconds, but sure if you have a good shot take it when you have it. Nothing really wrong with that.


Unless it's a layup, it's a bad shot if it's within 6secs. There's no way around it.

Long jumpshots can be taken any time in the NBA. NBA players have the ability to create space to get good 19ft jump shots.

It's a horrible strategy that encourages players to take awful, not just bad, shots.

Since86
01-21-2011, 02:35 PM
That seems like a really immature comment by Bucher.

Even if you don't think highly of PG, you still have Darren and it's not like Roy died. Even if he's playing badly, the "experts" were talking about how great he looked early on. There's no reason to think that he can't come back to that form.

graphic-er
01-21-2011, 02:38 PM
How so?

Its moronic.

ksuttonjr76
01-21-2011, 02:47 PM
"We've certainly played at a lower tempo to start this year," said O'Brien. "You can see it from point production. It's because we traded Troy Murphy so with a bigger lineup, we're not able to space the court as much. We're trying to bring Hibbert and Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts along as big players. We're going more to a smaller lineup now to space the court so we can be a little bit more difficult to guard. We still want to try to score in six seconds if we could but we're not willing to take a bad shot or give that up. Then we try to have a balance of inside/outside but frankly we're struggling with our post game so we need to go outside."

I stopped reading the article once I got to this paragraph....

Sookie
01-21-2011, 02:49 PM
Here's the thing, less talanted teams equalize the game by reducing (let me say that again) REDUCING the amount of possessions in a game.

graphic-er
01-21-2011, 02:51 PM
Here's the thing, less talanted teams equalize the game by reducing (let me say that again) REDUCING the amount of possessions in a game.

Oh sista, truer words have never been spoken.

Lets give other teams extra possessions because we shoot it in 6 seconds and dont' bother to rebound the ball. Thats what irks me the most, we don't crash the boards on offense. I mean when Granger lets a 3 go, not only is he running the other way but so is the 4 other guys on the team, that's just stupid.

Merz
01-21-2011, 02:53 PM
The whole idea of 6 seconds or less is ridiculous. Besides fast breaks how often can a team get a good shot in that amount of time?

...and yes before anyone comes here and says the 6 seconds is after they pass the half court line, I'm aware of that. Still it is not enough time.

No wonder Granger and Dunleavy often shoots moronic three pointers with 14 seconds left on the shot clock.

Sookie
01-21-2011, 03:01 PM
Oh sista, truer words have never been spoken.

Lets give other teams extra possessions because we shoot it in 6 seconds and dont' bother to rebound the ball. Thats what irks me the most, we don't crash the boards on offense. I mean when Granger lets a 3 go, not only is he running the other way but so is the 4 other guys on the team, that's just stupid.

If we get a good shot, and JOB would rather the team go back and defend then try for an offensive rebound...fair enough.

But a bad shot taken six shots into the shot clock is just going to end up in an easy basket for the other team. (Which is why everyone runs back, lets make it a little harder..)

But I am a bit caught, if JOB continues to give Josh, Price, Hans, and PG some time I do want to go easier on him..baby steps, you know? But still..some of this stuff....

I often wonder if the guy out thinks himself.

sportfireman
01-21-2011, 03:07 PM
"We've certainly played at a lower tempo to start this year," said O'Brien. "You can see it from point production. It's because we traded Troy Murphy so with a bigger lineup, we're not able to space the court as much. We're trying to bring Hibbert and Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts along as big players. We're going more to a smaller lineup now to space the court so we can be a little bit more difficult to guard. We still want to try to score in six seconds if we could but we're not willing to take a bad shot or give that up. Then we try to have a balance of inside/outside but frankly we're struggling with our post game so we need to go outside. I stopped reading here when he brings up his favorite blanket for his system.... Murphy. I mean seriously he's gone....:hmm: I guess we'll be trading back for Murphy soon.....

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 03:07 PM
Unless it's a layup, it's a bad shot if it's within 6secs. There's no way around it.



There is no way you can support such a claim. So are you saying that back in the day when Reggie Miller was wide open on a fastbreak for a three pointer that was a bad shot?

So you are saying if Collison get a wide open 15 ft jumper (basically a free throw) within 6 seconds that is a bad shot?

So you are saying if Danny is red hot has hit 3 straight threes and gets a wide iopen three with less and 6 seconds off the clock that too is a bad shot?

Beyond all that it is often easier to get a good shot before the defense is set.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 03:08 PM
Its moronic.

No, how is it like those division 2 coaches.

graphic-er
01-21-2011, 03:11 PM
No, how is it like those division 2 coaches.

Because they are moronic too. Equal levels moronic thinking.

sportfireman
01-21-2011, 03:12 PM
There is no way you can support such a claim. So are you saying that back in the day when Reggie Miller was wide open on a fastbreak for a three pointer that was a bad shot?

So you are saying if Collison get a wide open 15 ft jumper (basically a free throw) within 6 seconds that is a bad shot?

So you are saying if Danny is red hot has hit 3 straight threes and gets a wide iopen three with less and 6 seconds off the clock that too is a bad shot?

Beyond all that it is often easier to get a good shot before the defense is set.

Unless you lunge the ball down the court you're not gonna those kind of looks in under 6 sec.... I mean seriously Buck your defending of this coach has to stop and be realistic sometimes........

colts19
01-21-2011, 03:24 PM
There is no way you can support such a claim. So are you saying that back in the day when Reggie Miller was wide open on a fastbreak for a three pointer that was a bad shot?

So you are saying if Collison get a wide open 15 ft jumper (basically a free throw) within 6 seconds that is a bad shot?

So you are saying if Danny is red hot has hit 3 straight threes and gets a wide iopen three with less and 6 seconds off the clock that too is a bad shot?

Beyond all that it is often easier to get a good shot before the defense is set.

You can always pick and choose and your right a shot within six seconds can still be a good shot. But when your whole game plan is to shoot within 6 seconds it's not a winning style of basketball.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 03:32 PM
Unless you lunge the ball down the court you're not gonna those kind of looks in under 6 sec.... I mean seriously Buck your defending of this coach has to stop and be realistic sometimes........

Ok throw the coach out of the discussion. The point I am making is that often times it is easier to get a good shot within 6 seconds than it is later in the shotclock. You all know that but because Jim says it you are critical.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 03:33 PM
You can always pick and choose and your right a shot within six seconds can still be a good shot. But when your whole game plan is to shoot within 6 seconds it's not a winning style of basketball.

That is hardly the whole game plan - in fact that isn't a game plan at all. If it is the game plan then the players are doing a horrible job following it because rarely do the pacers shoot within 6 seconds

Since86
01-21-2011, 03:37 PM
There is no way you can support such a claim. So are you saying that back in the day when Reggie Miller was wide open on a fastbreak for a three pointer that was a bad shot?

As the saying goes... "Reggie Miller aint gonna walk through that door."

Just because Reggie did it, doesn't mean that Danny should do it. Or Darren. Or me.


So you are saying if Collison get a wide open 15 ft jumper (basically a free throw) within 6 seconds that is a bad shot?

A big portion of the time, yes. Unless they're trying for a two-for-one, then no, or if it's at the end of a period.

There are also certain situations, like if you're on a run late in the game, and a basket will just break the other teams back, then yes that's a shot I don't mind.

But that's not the issue. I'm talking about building an offensive philsophy around it.

There's a big difference in CERTAIN situations and preaching it as a staple part of your offensive gameplan.


So you are saying if Danny is red hot has hit 3 straight threes and gets a wide iopen three with less and 6 seconds off the clock that too is a bad shot?

Beyond all that it is often easier to get a good shot before the defense is set.[/QUOTE]

It depends. If it's a tied ball game with 20secs left, then no, that's not a good shot.

If the Pacers are down 1 with 5mins left in the second quarter, then I give him a little more leeway. But I still wouldn't like it.

Those are "Noooooo, YESSSSS" shots. You'd better be damn sure you're hitting them, if you're going to take them.

But once again, that's not the issue. Jim's offensive philsophy is based on that premise.

Getting an open jumpshot is not a hard task to do in the NBA. DC can get that shot just about whenever he wants.

Discipline requires you to pass up on a "good" shot in order to get a better one. A disciplined basketball team doesn't take the first open look they get.

This is the EXACT reason why the Pacers struggle to close out games. They don't have the discipline to get a bucket during key possessions.

Jim treats them like candy. If they drop one, another one is just 24secs away. It doesn't work that way.

sportfireman
01-21-2011, 03:40 PM
Ok throw the coach out of the discussion. The point I am making is that often times it is easier to get a good shot within 6 seconds than it is later in the shotclock. You all know that but because Jim says it you are critical.
How easy is it to get the ball down the court in 6 secs and get a good look at the basket? Once in a while it is possible but not as much as the coach wants it.

Since86
01-21-2011, 03:41 PM
That is hardly the whole game plan - in fact that isn't a game plan at all. If it is the game plan then the players are doing a horrible job following it because rarely do the pacers shoot within 6 seconds

Do you not read my post game comments?

I constantly ***** about it. Hell, Cordobes and I had this very discussion a few weeks ago, when he tried telling me that Jim was closer to SVG than D'Antoni.

I brought in all the stats from 82games.com.

The Pacers shoot more jumpshots and shots before 17secs are off the clock than NYK. Are you going to tell me that it's not Mike's gameplan either?

Jim just said it was their gameplan, and you still don't believe it. What else needs to happen before you can accept it?

We've said it here. I've posted documented evidence. And now Jim has said it publically.

What more do you need?

Sookie
01-21-2011, 03:48 PM
Ok throw the coach out of the discussion. The point I am making is that often times it is easier to get a good shot within 6 seconds than it is later in the shotclock. You all know that but because Jim says it you are critical.

Because the shots that you get within 6 seconds are transition baskets. That's okay, I don't think anyone is saying don't take those.

However, a quick shot, is not a good shot. This is the NBA, players can get a wide open three anytime they want. A well executed offense can get a good shot. As I said, with less talanted teams you want to reduce possessions. Because a wide open quick missed jump shot is quite often a layup at the other end.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 03:51 PM
Do you not read my post game comments?

I constantly ***** about it. Hell, Cordobes and I had this very discussion a few weeks ago, when he tried telling me that Jim was closer to SVG than D'Antoni.

I brought in all the stats from 82games.com.

The Pacers shoot more jumpshots and shots before 17secs are off the clock than NYK. Are you going to tell me that it's not Mike's gameplan either?

Jim just said it was their gameplan, and you still don't believe it. What else needs to happen before you can accept it?

We've said it here. I've posted documented evidence. And now Jim has said it publically.

What more do you need?

You are missing my point on the question of whether it is a "gameplan" I claim shooting within 6 seconds isn't and cannot be a game plan. It might be a goal to shoot within 6 seconds - that would mean the Pacers are getting a ton of fastbreaks. But that is not by definition a possible game plan. As in tomorrow night against the Blazers our gameplan is to shoot within 6 seconds. Ok, we are done guys go back to listening to your music and texting, as the coach I am done. A game plan changes from game to game. a game plan is for example running a lot of side pick and rolls when certain defenders are in the game a game plan to force the point guard to the baseline.

Unclebuck
01-21-2011, 03:54 PM
I was simply responding to your claim that "Unless it's a layup, it's a bad shot if it's within 6 secs"

I wasn't getting off into all the other areas I quoted in this post

In fact I agree with you in the other areas.

Since86
01-21-2011, 03:59 PM
How is it not a gameplan?

Gameplans have multiple bullet points. One of them is to shoot within 6secs if you have an open look. That happens multiple times a quarter for the Pacers team.

A gameplan is simply points of emphasis, and clearly it is a point of emphasis if thats what your team does, and that's what you talk about in the media.

This is why we argue about Jim. Because of things like this.

Since86
01-21-2011, 04:00 PM
I was simply responding to your claim that "Unless it's a layup, it's a bad shot if it's within 6 secs"

I wasn't getting off into all the other areas I quoted in this post

In fact I agree with you in the other areas.

90% of the time, it is. I didn't think I need to have a disclaimer that a last second heave from the opposite FT needed to be an exception.

I threw that one in there, because I didn't have it in my other list. Making sure I get all my ducks in a row, or to be called out on it.

BringJackBack
01-21-2011, 04:05 PM
That seems like a really immature comment by Bucher.

Not only immature, but flat out wrong. I don't think anyone other than Roy, Collison, and George are really all that talented at all (Rush could play backup wing for a good team as well as Hansbrough at power forward), but Roy, Collison, and George are all pretty damn nice young pieces.

Hicks
01-21-2011, 04:40 PM
I'm not thrilled with their distributions, but 82games.com does keep track of team shot attempts/percentages. They separate into categories of 0-10 seconds, 11-15, 16-20, and 21+.

I picked the Pacers, Celtics, Heat, Lakers, and Blazers.

1) All of them shoot more shots in 0-10 seconds than any other amount of time.

2) All of them shoot their highest eFG% in 0-110 seconds than any other amount of time.

3) The Pacers shoot more of them (by %), and hit less of them, than any of the others I listed.

4) Except for the Pacers, each of these teams' eFG% drops as you add time onto the length of their possessions. The Pacers are the only ones to shoot better at 16-20 seconds than 11-15 seconds (by about 3%).

I'm left to question my beliefs....

Hicks
01-21-2011, 04:45 PM
Not only immature, but flat out wrong. I don't think anyone other than Roy, Collison, and George are really all that talented at all (Rush could play backup wing for a good team as well as Hansbrough at power forward), but Roy, Collison, and George are all pretty damn nice young pieces.

I want to agree, but I'm really starting to have my doubts about Roy. Not his skill so much as what skill he is allowing himself to show us consistently because of his head. I'm worried.

beast23
01-21-2011, 04:47 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36554/nba-with-ric-bucher

Ric Bucher's chat on ESPN:

Matt (Indy)

The Pacers have some expiring contracts, as well as young, talented pieces. What do you see them doing at the trade deadline? Who will they move and what kind of players will they be looking to receive?
Ric Bucher (1:19 PM)

What is this young talent that you speak of?


Ouch.I don't think the comment is immature and I don't think it is a comment by a national follower that our talent is not as good as we think it is.

I think the comment was virtually a cop-out. I think he just as easily could have said "I consider the Pacers to be irrelevant, and therefore I no longer take the time to keep myself familiar with their players and talent."

The comment as stated basically slams the Pacers. The comment as I think it should have been stated basically makes Bucher look like an arse.

Now if you were Bucher, would you rather appear as a jerk or an arse? I think that in today's society, being a jerk in his position is almost expected. However being a lazy arse is not.

Eleazar
01-21-2011, 04:50 PM
Here's the thing, less talanted teams equalize the game by reducing (let me say that again) REDUCING the amount of possessions in a game.

I know it is a different sport, but you can't watch a Colts game without the announcers saying that exact same thing. Every team, I mean every team, tries to limit that amount of possessions when playing the Colts because they all know that is the only way they can compete with the Colts.

This is something that is true for every sport. If you are outmatched in talent you slow down the game, reduce the amount of touches the other team has, and you run your offense to be as efficient as possible. If you don't have the talent the only way to stand a chance is to control the tempo, and every team at the professional level has the talent too control the tempo.

BringJackBack
01-21-2011, 04:53 PM
I want to agree, but I'm really starting to have my doubts about Roy. Not his skill so much as what skill he is allowing himself to show us consistently because of his head. I'm worried.

I'm worried too, but it would still be silly to deny that he has value around the league, which is what Bucher is implying. He is denying that George, Collison, Hibbert, Rush, AJ, Hansbrough, and Josh are decent-to-good young players. I specifically remember Bucher licking his chops every time he mentioned Collison when he got hot last year with the Hornets FWIW.

About Roy, I have no clue what will happen to him.. He's at a crossroads. Will he get it together or will he feel sorry for himself? It worries me that he won't ever "feel" dominant again. Admittedly he was never dominant, but he had the confidence that he was. Hibbert reminded me of how Garnett would act during the game (Without the bullyish and douchebag stuff), meaning that he would get hyped over every game and took every little thing personal.

Since86
01-21-2011, 04:58 PM
1.) I think all teams shoot a higher volume of shots in the 0-10sec range, to be honest. The difference between Boston and Indiana, for example, shows the real difference in the numbers.

Boston shoots 33% of their fg attempts in that time range, compared to 41% of the Pacers. When I compared it last time when Cordobes and I were discussing it, I used a known offensive philsophy in NYK with D'Antoni to show where the Pacers ranked. They also shoot 41% of their shots in that time span.

2) All efg% in that time period, should be higher. There are going to be a big chunk of those attempts in the 0-10 time span that are layups. Even if you only get, say 12, fast break points per game, that's still shooting 6-6 on those attempts. That's really going to bump up the percentages when you split the clock into 5 divisions.

Also, the lowest fg% is going to be the 20+ section, because those are broken plays where you can't get a good shot off in time.

3) The Pacers shoot the worst fg% out of all of them, because more shots during that time are jumpshots. They purposely shoot long jumpshots quickly.

4) That one is kind of hard to explain. I wonder if scouting reports have much to do with it, and opponents knowing that the Pacers want to shoot quickly, so the longer you make them play defense the more likely they are to breakdown.

The Knicks also shoot a better % in the 16-20 range. Albeit, only 1%.


I think in order to really make heads or tails out of those numbers, you also need to factor in the shot type breakdown. I know they are two seperate categories, but I wish they had them combined showing 0-10 overall, then broken down into jumpshots, close, dunks, tips and then repeated for the rest of the shot clock usage.

That would be ideal.

EDIT: And as I look closer at 82games.com's numbers, I'm wondering the accuracy.

Under the shooting details for example, it's supposed to cover 100% of the shots they take in the game for both teams. But if you go by that it would mean the Pacers average giving up 77.9pts per game. That clearly isn't right.

Says Boston's 100% total is 73.1.

It's not making sense to me, but then again it is 4pm on a friday.

Eleazar
01-21-2011, 05:01 PM
I don't think the comment is immature and I don't think it is a comment by a national follower that our talent is not as good as we think it is.

I think the comment was virtually a cop-out. I think he just as easily could have said "I consider the Pacers to be irrelevant, and therefore I no longer take the time to keep myself familiar with their players and talent."

The comment as stated basically slams the Pacers. The comment as I think it should have been stated basically makes Bucher look like an arse.

Now if you were Bucher, would you rather appear as a jerk or an arse? I think that in today's society, being a jerk in his position is almost expected. However being a lazy arse is not.

He could have avoided both by saying something along the lines of, "I don't see any teams that would be interested in the talent that the young players bring to the floor, but the expiring contracts could bring back some nice young talent" or "I don't believe the Pacers have that much young talent, and no one really seems interested in the expiring contracts." There are a million ways that a professional reporter could say that would seem polite and honest. By saying it the way he did says a lot about him.

1: It says that he doesn't care about those sending him questions. The person didn't ask if he thought the Pacers had young talented players. He was asked what the Pacers could do with their assets at the trade deadline.

2: He is an amateur, and not a professional. A professional would never respond to that question in that way.

3: He is a terrible sports reporter. He showed that he doesn't care to pay attention to the Pacers. No matter what his opinion of the Pacers talent is he would have shown more respect for the Pacers if he cared and actually payed attention to the Pacers.

Eindar
01-21-2011, 05:18 PM
I think the problem with what Jim wants to do is that he's not doing it correctly. He wants to play like Mike D'Antoni. That's fine, SSOL is a proven winning brand of basketball. It doesn't win titles (yet), but it does win. However, D'Antoni has always had the benefit of great shooters and elite athletes who are in great shape. The purpose of SSOL is simply to be as efficient as possible on the offensive end. If you give up a layup on defense, that's fine as long as you get 3 points on your possession. SSOL is designed to turn the game into a track meet where you know you've got better athletes who are in better condition. The goal is to wear the other team down by forcing them to play at your pace.

In our case, we have little in the way of elite athleticism at all 5 positions. We push the pace, but we also let the other team grind on us defensively. SSOL-style ball will gamble more for steals and blocks because it reduces the time you spend on defense, which is exhausting.

In the end, this team has never been constructed properly for that style of ball from a personnel standpoint, and Jim doesn't seem to understand fully the concept that you can't play at a break-neck offensive pace and also allow a team to spend 16 seconds on the other end wearing your team out. This is why we tend to fold in the 4th, because our guys are dead tired from playing a lot of defense and very little offense, and the other team is fresh from playing almost no sustained defense.

As for the shot clock eFG% stat, I think that it is true that you get better shots earlier in the shot clock. If the defense has a chance to get set, it's tougher to get a good look, and players force shots at the end of the clock. O'Brien says as much. However, that stat should be adjusted to remove fast break baskets to see how the percentages change when we're just talking about taking shots early in a half-court set. I'm guessing the FG% would be low in the first few seconds, and would peak right around 14 seconds per possession before falling again as players are forced to take a bad shot with the clock winding down.

Anyways, back on topic, I think we've got some decent young pieces, but we're not going to compete with this group. We need to either trade Granger and do a full rebuild, or use our current expirings to bring in a blue chipper. The former is much more likely to result in a contending playoff team than the latter, as nobody trades a franchise player for expirings, unless they've got serious baggage, which will prevent the team from winning a title.

Since86
01-21-2011, 05:30 PM
I really have my doubts that SSOL will ever produce longterm winning results. Every good team in the NBA can, and will score offensively, especially when you're playing against another team that has zero desire to play defense, because they know they will get a crack at scoring as well.

When teams slow the game down, it not only forces the other team to play defense for long stretches, it also takes away their ability to score quickly in transition. There aren't a lot of fast break points from solid half court sets by the opponent.

You get fast break points from long rebounds, from long shots, and turnovers. You're not going to get many opportunities from either when you play really good basketball teams.

Not only that, but if you're so used to playing an up and down style, and you're forced into a more traditional half court set, how can you be expected to execute sets?

There's a BIG reason why PHO struggled in the playoffs, and it's because the game slows down and there's more of an emphasis on execution on both ends.

SSOL doesn't teach discipline, and you need that in the playoffs more than the ability to score in transition.

When a SSOL offense wins a championship, I'll eat my shoe. Literally.

Sookie
01-21-2011, 05:49 PM
I really have my doubts that SSOL will ever produce longterm winning results. Every good team in the NBA can, and will score offensively, especially when you're playing against another team that has zero desire to play defense, because they know they will get a crack at scoring as well.

When teams slow the game down, it not only forces the other team to play defense for long stretches, it also takes away their ability to score quickly in transition. There aren't a lot of fast break points from solid half court sets by the opponent.

You get fast break points from long rebounds, from long shots, and turnovers. You're not going to get many opportunities from either when you play really good basketball teams.

Not only that, but if you're so used to playing an up and down style, and you're forced into a more traditional half court set, how can you be expected to execute sets?

There's a BIG reason why PHO struggled in the playoffs, and it's because the game slows down and there's more of an emphasis on execution on both ends.

SSOL doesn't teach discipline, and you need that in the playoffs more than the ability to score in transition.

When a SSOL offense wins a championship, I'll eat my shoe. Literally.

It's won in the WNBA twice and the NBA once. (Paul Westhead won one in the NBA and one in the WNBA, and then his former assistant/player won one.)

Of course, that could be because he got to coach Magic Johnson and Diana Taurasi..

I think with the right players, most systems work. And actually, for the Phoenix Mercury, that system was actually better for them..because even though they had 3 of the top ten players in the World on their team, those three players were all pretty much SG/SF players. (Although Pondexter and Taurasi can swing to PG) which meant that playing small was really the way they needed to go.

This team doesn't really have the right players to do that, however. This is the right team to try the "slow it down, reduce possessions" traditional offense.

xIndyFan
01-21-2011, 05:57 PM
. . . This team doesn't really have the right players to do that, however. This is the right team to try the "slow it down, reduce possessions" traditional offense.


except this team is terrible in the half court. the only goto lineup they have is the collison-foster + 3 shooters lineup. pacers have no one that can score in an iso. it seems to me, going to a traditional half court type offense would only make the problem worse.

in time, i think a traditional lineup and offense will be a good thing. pacers have length at the 2, 3 and 5. trade/sign/draft a quality 4 with a good low post game and then the pacers might be able to run a traditional offense. but not with the guys they have now.

owl
01-21-2011, 06:23 PM
I really have my doubts that SSOL will ever produce longterm winning results. Every good team in the NBA can, and will score offensively, especially when you're playing against another team that has zero desire to play defense, because they know they will get a crack at scoring as well.

When teams slow the game down, it not only forces the other team to play defense for long stretches, it also takes away their ability to score quickly in transition. There aren't a lot of fast break points from solid half court sets by the opponent.

You get fast break points from long rebounds, from long shots, and turnovers. You're not going to get many opportunities from either when you play really good basketball teams.

Not only that, but if you're so used to playing an up and down style, and you're forced into a more traditional half court set, how can you be expected to execute sets?

There's a BIG reason why PHO struggled in the playoffs, and it's because the game slows down and there's more of an emphasis on execution on both ends.

SSOL doesn't teach discipline, and you need that in the playoffs more than the ability to score in transition.

When a SSOL offense wins a championship, I'll eat my shoe. Literally.

History supports you.

sportfireman
01-21-2011, 06:41 PM
The Pacers need to start embracing winning....