PDA

View Full Version : '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April



Hicks
04-02-2011, 01:20 AM
I was seeing some comments poo-pooing Frank's 18-15 record by saying something to the effect of 'it could be nothing more than our usual late season surge'.

Well, let's compare, shall we?

From the last game of January through the first game of April, here are the records:

Frank Vogel, 2011: 18-15
Jim O'Brien, 2010: 12-17
Jim O'Brien, 2009: 13-16
Jim O'Brien, 2008: 12-18

:whistle:

cdash
04-02-2011, 01:33 AM
I don't think you will find any rational person on this board saying that O'Brien is a better coach than Vogel.

I like Vogel, I really do. I'm more impressed by the fact that he weathered that locker room turmoil than his record. That could have ruined our season, but to his (and the players') credit, they bounced back. I still want to look at other coaching options this offseason, but I can't say I'd be too upset if Vogel got the gig full time. Even if he doesn't, I don't think we have seen the last of Frank Vogel as an NBA head coach.

KingGeorge
04-02-2011, 01:34 AM
I guess going 4 to 5 games under .500 is a late season surge for us. 18-15 is a miracle! When are they putting Frank's statue up in front of Conseco ? :D

ilive4sports
04-02-2011, 01:51 AM
I don't think you will find any rational person on this board saying that O'Brien is a better coach than Vogel.

I like Vogel, I really do. I'm more impressed by the fact that he weathered that locker room turmoil than his record. That could have ruined our season, but to his (and the players') credit, they bounced back. I still want to look at other coaching options this offseason, but I can't say I'd be too upset if Vogel got the gig full time. Even if he doesn't, I don't think we have seen the last of Frank Vogel as an NBA head coach.

This is pretty much how I feel too. I think Vogel has done a pretty good job since taking over. I also agree with the most impressive thing is his handling of the locker room problems, although we don't know how much was him pulling the team together.

I think Vogel has done a good job learning on the fly. He's fixing the substitution patterns now. I am worried about the defense though. I know its tough to do in season, but there needs to be a lot of change on that end of the court.

I'm also worried about having an inexperienced coach with an inexperienced team. In addition to the defensive problems, this is why I like the idea of someone like Mike Brown. He's got experience and is get on defense.

Vogel definitely deserves the first interview though.

Sandman21
04-02-2011, 02:00 AM
I've been saying it almost all along and I say it again:

I think Frank Vogel is the guy for the job. Let him find an veteran defensive coach for an assistant to add to the bench and I wouldn't be too concerned about having an inexperienced coach with an young, inexperienced team. Give him an offseason and a training camp as the head guy and I think we could be very pleased with what he could do.

presto123
04-02-2011, 02:05 AM
Frank deserves this job now.

spazzxb
04-02-2011, 02:13 AM
I was seeing some comments poo-pooing Frank's 18-15 record by saying something to the effect of 'it could be nothing more than our usual late season surge'.

Well, let's compare, shall we?

From the last game of January through the first game of April, here are the records:

Frank Vogel, 2011: 18-15
Jim O'Brien, 2010: 12-17
Jim O'Brien, 2009: 13-16
Jim O'Brien, 2008: 12-18

:whistle:

So you thought we needed a thread to pooh on the old coach. (good for you)
I will just say this debate is utterly pointless. Should we start another thread titled "Is it the players or the coach"? Do we need to argue about wether Bird forced Job to do the things that were already happening when Vogel took over again? Should we talk about the team having a lot of the same issue they had before Vogel or the fact that the season was weighted to allow a late season surge to be expected. The what if game has no value, young players should improve as the season goes on, and Bird has done a good job building our young team.

I would prefer everyone forget JOB existed and was never a supporter of his, (I didn't like him being a scapegoat for everything ) however I am not impressed with 3 games over .500 against a week schedule either.. I give the credit for improved play to the players, although I won't be shocked if they have another bad game(there young). Truthfully when it comes to the limited sample we don't have enough knowledge to make a true analysis of Vogals impact. We can try But Larry is going to be in a far better position to make this judgement and I leave that decision to him (assuming he stays). I will give Vogel this much though,"he didn't wreck the ship." The old guy gets more than his fair share of blame for the last 3 seasons.

Zenweezil
04-02-2011, 02:30 AM
I was seeing some comments poo-pooing Frank's 18-15 record by saying something to the effect of 'it could be nothing more than our usual late season surge'.

Well, let's compare, shall we?

From the last game of January through the first game of April, here are the records:

Frank Vogel, 2011: 18-15
Jim O'Brien, 2010: 12-17
Jim O'Brien, 2009: 13-16
Jim O'Brien, 2008: 12-18

:whistle:

It does feel different than previous years late-season runs, so I am glad to see W-L stats to support that. 18-15 is .545, so in the land of "What-IF", had they been able to do that all season they would be 42-35 right now and 6th in East. (A good goal for next season)

As it is, I think more importantly they have gone 8-4 since the most recent dreadful 6-game losing streak, including wins over Bulls and Celtics, both teams they had known they could be facing in the postseason. (FYI - they went 11-6 after their previous 6-game skid in January, including the 2 competitive loses to Miami)

Just think of how differently we would be talking about these Pacers had they not dropped those terrible games to Kings and Detroit this month - they would be winners of 7 straight and 10 of 12.

Is it possible these young Pacers are learning how to win in the NBA? Improving their game-closing abilities? It's the NBA, so young teams are going to have bad losses and many of their wins will come ugly. But I remember the Pacer teams that were annual playoff contenders having to scrape out a lot of tight games with ugly wins too.

Come playoff time our starting line up will only have a total of 14 NBA seasons experience, which by my quick count says the Pacers are the 2nd youngest starting lineup in the NBA, behind only Washington.

Collison: 2nd NBA season / 1st as starter / 23 years old
George: 1st NBA season / 1st as starter / 20 year old
Granger: 6th NBA season / 5th as starter / 27 years old
Hansbrough: 2nd NBA season / 1st as starter / 25 years old
HIbbert: 3rd NBA season / 2nd as starter / 24 years old


Wizards (Wall 1/20, Crawford 2/22, Young 4/25, Jianlian 4/23, Mcgee 3/23): 2.8 NBA seasons / 22.6 years
Pacers: (see above): 2.8 NBA seasons / 23.8 years
Thunder: (Westbrook 3/22, Sefalosa 5/26, Durant 4/22, Ibaka 2/21, Perkins 8/26): 4.4 NBA seasons / 23.4 years
Wolves (Ridnour 8/ 30, Johnson 1/23, Beasley 3/22, Love 3/22, Pekovic 1/25): 3.0 NBA seasons / 24.4 years

presto123
04-02-2011, 02:48 AM
It does feel different than previous years late-season runs, so I am glad to see W-L stats to support that. 18-15 is .545, so in the land of "What-IF", had they been able to do that all season they would be 42-35 right now and 6th in East. (A good goal for next season)

As it is, I think more importantly they have gone 8-4 since the most recent dreadful 6-game losing streak, including wins over Bulls and Celtics, both teams they had known they could be facing in the postseason. (FYI - they went 11-6 after their previous 6-game skid in January, including the 2 competitive loses to Miami)

Just think of how differently we would be talking about these Pacers had they not dropped those terrible games to Kings and Detroit this month - they would be winners of 7 straight and 10 of 12.

Is it possible these young Pacers are learning how to win in the NBA? Improving their game-closing abilities? It's the NBA, so young teams are going to have bad losses and many of their wins will come ugly. But I remember the Pacer teams that were annual playoff contenders having to scrape out a lot of tight games with ugly wins too.

Come playoff time our starting line up will only have a total of 14 NBA seasons experience, which by my quick count says the Pacers are the 2nd youngest starting lineup in the NBA, behind only Washington.

Collison: 2nd NBA season / 1st as starter / 23 years old
George: 1st NBA season / 1st as starter / 20 year old
Granger: 6th NBA season / 5th as starter / 27 years old
Hansbrough: 2nd NBA season / 1st as starter / 25 years old
HIbbert: 3rd NBA season / 2nd as starter / 24 years old


Wizards (Wall 1/20, Crawford 2/22, Young 4/25, Jianlian 4/23, Mcgee 3/23): 2.8 NBA seasons / 22.6 years
Pacers: (see above): 2.8 NBA seasons / 23.8 years
Thunder: (Westbrook 3/22, Sefalosa 5/26, Durant 4/22, Ibaka 2/21, Perkins 8/26): 4.4 NBA seasons / 23.4 years
Wolves (Ridnour 8/ 30, Johnson 1/23, Beasley 3/22, Love 3/22, Pekovic 1/25): 3.0 NBA seasons / 24.4 years

Welcome to the board:)

spazzxb
04-02-2011, 02:58 AM
It does feel different than previous years late-season runs, so I am glad to see W-L stats to support that. 18-15 is .545, so in the land of "What-IF", had they been able to do that all season they would be 42-35 right now and 6th in East. (A good goal for next season)

As it is, I think more importantly they have gone 8-4 since the most recent dreadful 6-game losing streak, including wins over Bulls and Celtics, both teams they had known they could be facing in the postseason. (FYI - they went 11-6 after their previous 6-game skid in January, including the 2 competitive loses to Miami)

Just think of how differently we would be talking about these Pacers had they not dropped those terrible games to Kings and Detroit this month - they would be winners of 7 straight and 10 of 12.

Is it possible these young Pacers are learning how to win in the NBA? Improving their game-closing abilities? It's the NBA, so young teams are going to have bad losses and many of their wins will come ugly. But I remember the Pacer teams that were annual playoff contenders having to scrape out a lot of tight games with ugly wins too.

Come playoff time our starting line up will only have a total of 14 NBA seasons experience, which by my quick count says the Pacers are the 2nd youngest starting lineup in the NBA, behind only Washington.

Collison: 2nd NBA season / 1st as starter / 23 years old
George: 1st NBA season / 1st as starter / 20 year old
Granger: 6th NBA season / 5th as starter / 27 years old
Hansbrough: 2nd NBA season / 1st as starter / 25 years old
HIbbert: 3rd NBA season / 2nd as starter / 24 years old


Wizards (Wall 1/20, Crawford 2/22, Young 4/25, Jianlian 4/23, Mcgee 3/23): 2.8 NBA seasons / 22.6 years
Pacers: (see above): 2.8 NBA seasons / 23.8 years
Thunder: (Westbrook 3/22, Sefalosa 5/26, Durant 4/22, Ibaka 2/21, Perkins 8/26): 4.4 NBA seasons / 23.4 years
Wolves (Ridnour 8/ 30, Johnson 1/23, Beasley 3/22, Love 3/22, Pekovic 1/25): 3.0 NBA seasons / 24.4 years

I thought we were number two once George took the SG spot, but its interesting to see that the thunder are now number three after the Perkins acquisition. Beyond the youth of the starting lineup, I believe DJ and Posey are the only players older than Danny that we have under contract for next season. The other day I actually goggle "youngest nba starting lineups", didn't find it, did you put this together yourself?

Pacemaker
04-02-2011, 03:20 AM
I've been saying it almost all along and I say it again:

I think Frank Vogel is the guy for the job. Let him find an veteran defensive coach for an assistant to add to the bench and I wouldn't be too concerned about having an inexperienced coach with an young, inexperienced team. Give him an offseason and a training camp as the head guy and I think we could be very pleased with what he could do.

Wouldn't it be hilarious that Frank could hire Jim as an assistant and mentor him just a little bit !!! NOT !!

TheDon
04-02-2011, 04:55 AM
I was seeing some comments poo-pooing Frank's 18-15 record by saying something to the effect of 'it could be nothing more than our usual late season surge'.

Well, let's compare, shall we?

From the last game of January through the first game of April, here are the records:

Frank Vogel, 2011: 18-15
Jim O'Brien, 2010: 12-17
Jim O'Brien, 2009: 13-16
Jim O'Brien, 2008: 12-18

:whistle:

Thanks for going through the trouble to put this together, this is what I had guessed to be the case but didn't know for sure.

McKeyFan
04-02-2011, 09:02 AM
So you thought we needed a thread to pooh on the old coach. (good for you)
I will just say this debate is utterly pointless. Should we start another thread titled "Is it the players or the coach"? Do we need to argue about wether Bird forced Job to do the things that were already happening when Vogel took over again? Should we talk about the team having a lot of the same issue they had before Vogel or the fact that the season was weighted to allow a late season surge to be expected. The what if game has no value, young players should improve as the season goes on, and Bird has done a good job building our young team.

This board discusses all kinds of subjects from the past and argues over things that happened 10 or 15 years ago. It's part of what goes on here.

Certainly, something that happened this season, in the last couple of months, is in line with the kind of things PD deals with.

Add to that, there are still a number of posters who aren't willing to admit that JOB was a bad coach or that Vogel shouldn't have replaced him or that Vogel's coaching is the key component to the improved record after getting rid of Jim.

So, if they are taking those positions, it's fair game to continue discussing it. The subject also continues to be very relevant because the Pacers will soon be deciding whether or not to keep Vogel for next year. How he has performed in contrast to JOB is ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT to that question.

"The past is not dead and buried. In fact, it's not even past."

—F. Scott Fitzgerald

Justin Tyme
04-02-2011, 10:31 AM
I've been saying it almost all along and I say it again:

I think Frank Vogel is the guy for the job. Let him find an veteran defensive coach for an assistant to add to the bench and I wouldn't be too concerned about having an inexperienced coach with an young, inexperienced team. Give him an offseason and a training camp as the head guy and I think we could be very pleased with what he could do.


Not to mention the next coach might not play the young'ns like Vogel has. I like how many players he uses instead of an 7-8 player rotation of many coaches.

Unclebuck
04-02-2011, 10:39 AM
I don't think you will find any rational person on this board saying that O'Brien is a better coach than Vogel.



I consider myself rational and while I won't say that O'Brien is better than Vogel, I certainly won't say that Vogel is better than O'Brien. Way, way way too soon to draw any hard conclusions on Vogel. I'll say he's done a nice job through 33 games. He's hasn't coached through a training camp, through preseason games, through the process when the players begin to get sick of hearing you.

Jim O'Brien has coached about 7 NBA seasons, has goten his team to game 6 of the ECF.

I think for anyone to conclude that Vogel is a better coach than O'Brien is irrational. Is Vogel a better coach for this Pacers team right now? Of course, but a better coach overall - get back with me after Vogel has coached two or three full seasons.


Edit: I'm not sure it is entirely fair to include the honeymoon period - the first 8-10 games Vogel coached this team. Any coach would have had a honeymoon period taking over for JOB.

Pacers did end the season last year 10-4, actually they were 10-2 until the lost their last two games. The schdule to end the year last year was easy, but Vogel's first 10 games schedule was easy. I suppose my point is, I'm not convinced that Vogel is the answer and that is the only question we need to be concerned about. O'Brien is gone, not coming back, so he's not the issue anymore.

Brad8888
04-02-2011, 10:51 AM
Yep, if the vast majority of posters observe an improvement in performance overall with a better record and a decided difference in playing style, differences in rotations that happen to coincide with the prevailing opinion the board has had for about two years prior to the change having been made, differences in how much time is being given to younger and more effective players which also matches what many here had been calling for, and an overall positive difference in player and team attitudes (except when Lance got inserted and apparently caused issues, which was then quickly corrected) that has been very evident even beyond the honeymoon period, there is no way anyone could possibly reach any type of conclusion who the better coach is, when even the players who have played for both have all but come straight out in the media with their own conclusions that appear to be the same ones that most of us, as posters, seem to be coming up with.

Nope, there is no way that any of us can conclude anything ever, really...

aceace
04-02-2011, 10:58 AM
It is hard to determine how good Vogel can be or not be. He's looking pretty good though compared to the previous 4 years.

Hicks
04-02-2011, 10:58 AM
So you thought we needed a thread to pooh on the old coach. (good for you)

You missed the point entirely. It's not about Jim O'Brien. It's about Frank Vogel doing something different than Jim did, when we have people acting like it's exactly the same as the last 3 years. It's not. This is an improvement.

Unclebuck
04-02-2011, 11:11 AM
For the record, I did not put much stock at all into the 10-4 record to finish last season. The schedule was easy, the team was out of it, I was not impressed. I even posted in this forum that if I were in charge I think it is time to replace the coach, that replacing the coach will most likley get us more wins this season........I also wanted significant player changes in the offseason. So I never thought, wow, we've turned the corner

Hicks, I think I posted something like this year is like the past few seasons with a fast finish, it was an offhanded remark, not something I really believed in strongly, just throwing it out there for the fun of it. The worst thing about any forum or just the written word is impossible to determine how strongly the writer feels about something.

Hicks
04-02-2011, 11:14 AM
Edit: I'm not sure it is entirely fair to include the honeymoon period - the first 8-10 games Vogel coached this team. Any coach would have had a honeymoon period taking over for JOB.

Pacers did end the season last year 10-4, actually they were 10-2 until the lost their last two games. The schdule to end the year last year was easy, but Vogel's first 10 games schedule was easy. I suppose my point is, I'm not convinced that Vogel is the answer and that is the only question we need to be concerned about. O'Brien is gone, not coming back, so he's not the issue anymore.

To be fair in the other direction, I think the honeymoon argument is countered with the 6 game locker-room induced losing streak.

But regardless of where your opinion falls on that, this thread was never about which is the better coach or whether this means we should bring Vogel back.

I just took exception to the idea that nothing's changed and that we're just mirroring the last 3 years. We're not.

Hicks
04-02-2011, 11:17 AM
That's a good point, too. This year the wins aren't 'meaningless' or 'empty', as they were before, when it was too little too late. There's more pressure to win this time, and we're doing it without leaning on the veterans.

Unclebuck
04-02-2011, 11:23 AM
To be fair in the other direction, I think the honeymoon argument is countered with the 6 game locker-room induced losing streak.

But regardless of where your opinion falls on that, this thread was never about which is the better coach or whether this means we should bring Vogel back.

I just took exception to the idea that nothing's changed and that we're just mirroring the last 3 years. We're not.


The six game losing stretch included games at Dallas, OKC, and Houston (Rockets have ben one of the best teams in the NBA since As break)- games we would have likely lost anyway. Also included a home game against the Sixers who were playing great at the time, and then two road games one at Minny and one at Toronto. Take out the locker room situation if you want, Pacers probably win 2 or 3 of those 6 anyway.

To your general point, yes things have changed a great deal since the past few seasons, some due to coaching, some due to younger players getting better from playing a few seasons and the natural maturing process. Plus this team is more talented and in a better position to wins a better team than the past two seasons for sure. Fewer injuries also.

LoneGranger33
04-02-2011, 11:25 AM
Another fair point to make is that this is a better team than the ones O'Brien had the prior three seasons. Ultimately, that's what led to his dismissal - Jim wasn't maximizing the talent on his roster. I don't think Vogel is quite there yet either (as the Sacto and Detroit games may illustrate), but I don't think there's any argument that he's doing a much better job with this group than its previous coach.

An addendum: I personally thought O'Brien's teams were underperforming every year he was here, but that may have just been my Pacers bias that always makes me think higher of our squad. This year, many more people thought that way - including TPTB - so we got a change.

Unclebuck
04-02-2011, 11:29 AM
That's a good point, too. This year the wins aren't 'meaningless' or 'empty', as they were before, when it was too little too late. There's more pressure to win this time, and we're doing it without leaning on the veterans.


That is why last nights game was impressive. I thought the Bucks played pretty well, both teams played hard, both probably played about as well as they are capable right now.

DaveP63
04-02-2011, 11:31 AM
I did the math the other night against the Celts...Our entire starting lineup has less NBA time than Paul Pierce...I think Frank deserves a hard look based upon what he's done.

Naptown_Seth
04-02-2011, 11:32 AM
The worst thing about any forum or just the written word is impossible to determine how strongly the writer feels about something.
Not true.

It's been clear to me that you had the ring picked out and were all set to propose to Jim when the time was right for years now.


:-p


BTW, along these lines I do think we are seeing the old Buck returning slowly as the JOB battles start to slip away. I think fighting those battles started to affect you.

I guess that's true for me to if you bring up Josh, Rush or Price to be fair.


But you still hung onto some pretty extreme defenses of JOB no matter what the reason.

Kegboy
04-02-2011, 11:32 AM
I just really, really hope we can get to 37 wins. I think there are people on this board who weren't even alive the last time that happened.

Naptown_Seth
04-02-2011, 11:34 AM
The six game losing stretch included games at Dallas, OKC, and Houston
Thank god Gnome and I did that road trip. So worth it to catch the heart of that brilliant run.


At least Denari, Paetz and co were nice to us. Someone from the Pacers org made an effort to make us happy. :D

docpaul
04-02-2011, 11:35 AM
One of the things I struggle with in these conversations, is that the thread is only considering a portion of the total information.

People are making judgments to keep Vogel around, purely in many cases by comparing him to JOB.

I can speak for myself when I say that there are quite a few other active or waiting by the wayside coach candidates that I'd take over Vogel at this point.

Would I prefer Vogel over JOB? Sure.

Would I prefer Vogel over someone like Chuck Person or Van Gundy? Not so sure.

I'd interview everyone and their uncle, and then pick the best.

BillS
04-02-2011, 11:39 AM
Why are we using "record since before the all-star break" to equal "late-season surge"? The records being used don't match the intent of the thread.

Kegboy
04-02-2011, 11:41 AM
I'd interview everyone and their uncle, and then pick the best.

Ah, yes, but do you really trust Larry making that decision?

:stirthepo

Kegboy
04-02-2011, 11:53 AM
Why are we using "record since before the all-star break" to equal "late-season surge"? The records being used don't match the intent of the thread.

It matches the title of the thread. It also gives us the largest sample, comparing Vogel's entire tenure to the corresponding dates for Jimmy. Would you rather we compared their overall win percentages, instead? :-p

geetee
04-02-2011, 11:59 AM
Didn't I read somewhere that Frank consults Larry quite a bit about coaching the team. I think it's great he utilizes a mentor, but it leads to the question of how many of the decisions are his alone. I really like what Frank has done, but I'd feel better about him if I knew for sure he was the one with the original ideas for the changes that have been made.

Sandman21
04-02-2011, 12:04 PM
Wouldn't it be hilarious that Frank could hire Jim as an assistant and mentor him just a little bit !!! NOT !!

"Now see Jimmy, you can play youth and be successful. Oh, and James Posey is not a "Stretch 4. That's just a terrible idea. And attacking the paint is NOT worth just one point".......

Not to mention the next coach might not play the young'ns like Vogel has. I like how many players he uses instead of an 7-8 player rotation of many coaches.
DC in particular not having a new coach for once in his career would benefit HUGELY from Vogel being retained.

PaceBalls
04-02-2011, 12:34 PM
Besides bashing Jim, I think we can ask.. has Frank done a good enough job to warrant bringing him back? I think the playoffs and how we perform will be a key factor in that decision.

The playoffs require a coach to not only be prepared with scouting, but to be able to adjust game to game against the same opponent. Coaching becomes much more important in a series like that.

Right now, I'd like to bring Frank back for one season. He became the captain of a sinking ship. You gotta give him credit for righting it.

Let's give him a whole summer to prepare and work with the guys and see how he does. We can always get a big name coach the year after if it doesn't work out.

BillS
04-02-2011, 12:48 PM
It matches the title of the thread. It also gives us the largest sample, comparing Vogel's entire tenure to the corresponding dates for Jimmy. Would you rather we compared their overall win percentages, instead? :-p

I thought the intent, from the first post, was to say this wasn't the same as the late season surges under JOB. If that is the comparison, we need to compare the "late season" numbers, not the entire numbers.

imawhat
04-02-2011, 12:56 PM
Here's something to throw out there: number of home vs. away games in each of these seasons. This was done rather quickly, so it may be slightly off.

'07-'08: 21 home, 15 away
'08-'09: 18 home, 16 away
'09-'10: 18 home, 16 away
'10-'11: 15 home, 17 away

I wish I had time to do strength of schedule.

*edit*-now realizing I went ahead and finished out the schedule for the previous three seasons, as opposed to stopping in April.

Major Cold
04-02-2011, 01:11 PM
I thoroughly believe that both Vogel and JOB want(ed) to win. The difference is that Vogel is willing to use any resources available to do that, and notice and comment when that change did not work.

As connected fans we want to know what is going on. Do we have the right to know everything...NO. I don't want to know about Lance's late night reardezvous. But if it is conduct to the vitality of the team I want to know what is going on.

I wish we could be around the team as much as the staff. I think then we would realize how hard it is to win in the league. When we make the playoffs, enjoy it. Cause we might not get back for a long time. It is not a given that we will be contenders soon.

vnzla81
04-02-2011, 01:25 PM
Another thing that is fair to take into account is that Jim would collect a lot of wins at the end of the year by beating teams that were in "tanking mode", this year because of the lockout and the weak draft teams are not tanking making it harder for the Pacers to win.

Peck
04-02-2011, 01:49 PM
After long consideration about this which included both prayer and meditation as well as seeking out statistical experts from M.I.T. (for those who can not live without some form of statistic being studied) I have come to one conclusion.

Jim O'Brien is the devil.

Derrick McKey can finally feel sanctified.

Unclebuck
04-02-2011, 01:57 PM
Another thing that is fair to take into account is that Jim would collect a lot of wins at the end of the year by beating teams that were in "tanking mode", this year because of the lockout and the weak draft teams are not tanking making it harder for the Pacers to win.


So wait, this year is the only year that teams aren't tanking? Wow that is conveniant. I think that is imposible to prove and document. I much better argument in Frank's favor is simply to say these wins are leading to the playoffs where as last years 10-4 were after the pacers were eliminated.

cdash
04-02-2011, 01:59 PM
So wait, this year is the only year that teams aren't tanking? Wow that is conveniant. I think that is imposible to prove and document. I much better argument in Frank's favor is simply to say these wins are leading to the playoffs where as last years 10-4 were after the pacers were eliminated.

Yeah, it actually is convenient. This is not a tank-worthy draft, so teams aren't doing it as much. There is not prize to tank for this season. It might be impossible to prove in a court of law, but I think most people would agree that there is very little tanking going on this year, if any.

cdash
04-02-2011, 02:01 PM
I consider myself rational and while I won't say that O'Brien is better than Vogel, I certainly won't say that Vogel is better than O'Brien. Way, way way too soon to draw any hard conclusions on Vogel. I'll say he's done a nice job through 33 games. He's hasn't coached through a training camp, through preseason games, through the process when the players begin to get sick of hearing you.

Jim O'Brien has coached about 7 NBA seasons, has goten his team to game 6 of the ECF.

I think for anyone to conclude that Vogel is a better coach than O'Brien is irrational. Is Vogel a better coach for this Pacers team right now? Of course, but a better coach overall - get back with me after Vogel has coached two or three full seasons.


Edit: I'm not sure it is entirely fair to include the honeymoon period - the first 8-10 games Vogel coached this team. Any coach would have had a honeymoon period taking over for JOB.

Pacers did end the season last year 10-4, actually they were 10-2 until the lost their last two games. The schdule to end the year last year was easy, but Vogel's first 10 games schedule was easy. I suppose my point is, I'm not convinced that Vogel is the answer and that is the only question we need to be concerned about. O'Brien is gone, not coming back, so he's not the issue anymore.

Okay, okay, allow me to qualify my previous statement. No rational person can argue that at this time, for this team, that Vogel is not a better option as head coach than Jim O'Brien.

vnzla81
04-02-2011, 02:17 PM
So wait, this year is the only year that teams aren't tanking? Wow that is conveniant. I think that is imposible to prove and document. I much better argument in Frank's favor is simply to say these wins are leading to the playoffs where as last years 10-4 were after the pacers were eliminated.

I know that there is no way to prove it, but like I said before the NBA lockout and this years draft been one of the worse in the last 10 years is a reason why teams are not tanking, I don't know if you pay attention to the mock drafts or anything like that, but it looks like the number one pick is going to be anybody's guess.

Last year teams were tanking for Wall, the year before Blake and the year before that one Rose, in this years draft everybody in the top ten is pretty much equal.

Sookie
04-02-2011, 02:23 PM
Not true.

It's been clear to me that you had the ring picked out and were all set to propose to Jim when the time was right for years now.


:-p


BTW, along these lines I do think we are seeing the old Buck returning slowly as the JOB battles start to slip away. I think fighting those battles started to affect you.

I guess that's true for me to if you bring up Josh, Rush or Price to be fair.


But you still hung onto some pretty extreme defenses of JOB no matter what the reason.

A lot of people stick their heels in the ground for players/coaches. You do it with Josh, I do it with AJ and to a lesser extent DC (irony right there), and Buck...for whatever strange reason, did it for JOB.

As for Frank, I like Frank a lot. I like that he utilizes every resource he has. I like that he does an excellent job of picking up good ideas from other coaches. He has, imo, a lot of potential as a coach.

And I like him for this team. However, I agree that the Pacers should interview everyone, talk to the players that are coming back to see what they want. And decide. But I'd give Frank the first interview.

ilive4sports
04-02-2011, 02:47 PM
Thank god Gnome and I did that road trip. So worth it to catch the heart of that brilliant run.


At least Denari, Paetz and co were nice to us. Someone from the Pacers org made an effort to make us happy. :D

Is there something you want to tell us about you and Stacy Paetz.... or Denari?:laugh:

Dr. Awesome
04-02-2011, 03:33 PM
Can we just have a thread for UncleBuck to go on and on about how Jim O'Brien is a smart guy and good coach who makes very good basketball decisions?

I just see the same argument poison too many threads, obviously the OB haters are at fault for this as well, but at least we are all one one page. If UB just had his giant "O'Brien is a genius who should be in the HOF thread" where he can constantly vent at all the OB haters, then we can keep this out of the 8/10 threads it gets into.

Yes, I realize I exaggerated, no need to point it out.

Trophy
04-02-2011, 03:59 PM
The players respect a normal coach.

O'Brien just wasn't normal as far as coaching.

I mean choosing to use an old James Posey who is not even a PF to play that position over Tyler and/or Josh.

I'll admit, Vogel hasn't been a disappointment. He's a good teacher for the younger guys.

spazzxb
04-02-2011, 04:15 PM
Add to that, there are still a number of posters who aren't willing to admit that JOB was a bad coach or that Vogel shouldn't have replaced him or that Vogel's coaching is the key component to the improved record after getting rid of Jim.




You may be able annoy someone into not stating there thoughts, however what could possibly be said that is going to cause anyone to change there mind at this point? You talk about your opinions like they are facts, no one needs to admit anything. Maybe I am missing something but the only people I see bringing Job up are the ones trying to complain about him a bit more. I haven't seen anyone (not once) try and make the argument that getting rid of JOB was a mistake.

count55
04-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Hicks, I think I posted something like this year is like the past few seasons with a fast finish, it was an offhanded remark, not something I really believed in strongly, just throwing it out there for the fun of it. The worst thing about any forum or just the written word is impossible to determine how strongly the writer feels about something.

He's responding to me. (http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/03/game-73-recap-i-am-tyler-hansbroughs-jump-shot/)


Much has been made about this team’s performance under Frank Vogel. Hey, they’re 15-14 since they fired O’Brien.

Yippee.

I’ve already outlined how bad many of those 14 losses are. The wins aren’t all that impressive, either. Only two teams have had an easier schedule than the Pacers (.463) between January 30th and March 25th. They’ve won five of their last eight games. The five wins have been by a combined 49 points. The three losses have been by a combined 50 points.

The more you look at what’s happening now, the more you have to ask yourself if we haven’t seen this before. In 2008, the Pacers were 15-14 after the All Star break and won 11 of their last 16 ballgames. In 2009, Indy posted a 15-13 post All Star break record and won eight of their final 12. Last season, with one of the worst teams in franchise history, they won 10 of their final 14 games to go 14-16 after the break. These were all written off as a bad team playing hard after most other bad teams had pulled the chute, and broadly criticized as doing nothing but hurting their draft position.

Is what we’re seeing now really any different?

The immediate reaction will be to say, “Yes. They are going to make the playoffs, and that makes a world of difference.” Well, it does, and it doesn’t.

They are going to make the playoffs. They probably only have to win three or perhaps four games to lock it up, and there are only four teams it the Association who have an easier schedule between now and the end of the season. But, really, the Pacers (like the Knicks) are going to the playoffs because they have to take eight teams from the East, and there are only six non-train wrecks in the conference.

And going to the playoffs is a positive, both for the franchise and for the players. But this isn’t a “playoff team” by any stretch of the imagination.


This was from the recap on 8p9s last Saturday after the lost to the Kings. Within hours after it was posted, the Pacers went out and lost to Detroit.


I just took exception to the idea that nothing's changed and that we're just mirroring the last 3 years. We're not.

___________



That's a good point, too. This year the wins aren't 'meaningless' or 'empty', as they were before, when it was too little too late. There's more pressure to win this time, and we're doing it without leaning on the veterans.

With the exception of last season, this is revisionist history. In 2008, the Pacers were eliminated after 81 games. In 2009, they were eliminated after 79 games. They were in big holes and were chasing, and large numbers of people on this board wanted the games to be meaningless, but the Pacers were trying to make the playoffs.

There are differences between this finish and the three previous years, however, most of them are external to the Pacers. The biggest difference is that there is no real chase for the last spot. The Pacers have it, and there's no team coming hard and fast to take it.

This team with this record would have been 3 1/2 games out of the playoffs on April 2nd last year. They would have been 1 1/2 games out in 2009, and 1 game out in 2008. That the Pacers are going to make the playoffs is at least equally a function of a lower hurdle as it is anything going on within the organization.

The overall point wasn't that this is exactly the same thing - it's similar, but not the same. It wasn't that this was going to happen even under O'Brien - it would not have. The point was that this was a basketball team with a lot of problems. Way more than can be explained away by either bad coaching or youth.

The point was that as they enter their summer of opportunity, I don't think they have a very sound foundation.

Oh, yeah, somebody mentioned strength of schedule - here are SoSHR's (SoS adjusted for home/road games) for these stretches (last game in Jan thru 1st game in Apr) in each of the last three years:

2008 - .495
2009 - .467
2010 - .536
2011 - .457

Major Cold
04-02-2011, 05:42 PM
Well look who decided to come out of his ESPN loft to give us stats. Good to see you count.

McKeyFan
04-02-2011, 06:31 PM
Yep, if the vast majority of posters observe an improvement in performance overall with a better record and a decided difference in playing style, differences in rotations that happen to coincide with the prevailing opinion the board has had for about two years prior to the change having been made, differences in how much time is being given to younger and more effective players which also matches what many here had been calling for, and an overall positive difference in player and team attitudes (except when Lance got inserted and apparently caused issues, which was then quickly corrected) that has been very evident even beyond the honeymoon period, there is no way anyone could possibly reach any type of conclusion who the better coach is, when even the players who have played for both have all but come straight out in the media with their own conclusions that appear to be the same ones that most of us, as posters, seem to be coming up with.

Nope, there is no way that any of us can conclude anything ever, really...
Exactly.

At some point, you have to tell your buddy Descartes to get a life. You exist, dude.

kester99
04-02-2011, 06:42 PM
Well, the only thing that going to bridge that divide is the Pacers going to the playoffs and winning some games. It would be kind of hard to say they're not a playoff team at that point...winning a couple against one of the non-trainwreck clubs.

Naptown_Seth
04-02-2011, 06:47 PM
Is there something you want to tell us about you and Stacy Paetz.... or Denari?:laugh:
While it would be a juicy story, sadly the bar for keeping me happy is a lot lower than that. Saying hello and not getting stomped by 25 points is about all it takes.

No offense to Chris, but he's not my type.

No offense to Stacy, but my wife might read this.

McKeyFan
04-02-2011, 06:53 PM
I'd interview everyone and their uncle, and then pick the best.
Let's leave out the uncle. Too complicated.

speakout4
04-02-2011, 07:07 PM
Didn't I read somewhere that Frank consults Larry quite a bit about coaching the team. I think it's great he utilizes a mentor, but it leads to the question of how many of the decisions are his alone. I really like what Frank has done, but I'd feel better about him if I knew for sure he was the one with the original ideas for the changes that have been made.
Given his inexperience and the circumstances by which he got the job Frank should consult LB. I would not be as impressed with him if he didn't.

Unclebuck
04-02-2011, 09:26 PM
2008 - .495
2009 - .467
2010 - .536
2011 - .457


Thanks count, your whole post is great.

Wow I didn't realize this years schedule was so front loaded, and if I remember correctly, November wasn't too bad so December and January as far as strength of schedule is concernd were murder

I've always said that if a team didn't win at least 40 games they don't deserve to be in the playoffs

Eleazar
04-02-2011, 11:11 PM
Given his inexperience and the circumstances by which he got the job Frank should consult LB. I would not be as impressed with him if he didn't.

Honestly I would expect every coach to consult with the GM.

Hicks
04-02-2011, 11:14 PM
He's responding to me. (http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/03/game-73-recap-i-am-tyler-hansbroughs-jump-shot/)



This was from the recap on 8p9s last Saturday after the lost to the Kings. Within hours after it was posted, the Pacers went out and lost to Detroit.



___________




With the exception of last season, this is revisionist history. In 2008, the Pacers were eliminated after 81 games. In 2009, they were eliminated after 79 games. They were in big holes and were chasing, and large numbers of people on this board wanted the games to be meaningless, but the Pacers were trying to make the playoffs.

There are differences between this finish and the three previous years, however, most of them are external to the Pacers. The biggest difference is that there is no real chase for the last spot. The Pacers have it, and there's no team coming hard and fast to take it.

This team with this record would have been 3 1/2 games out of the playoffs on April 2nd last year. They would have been 1 1/2 games out in 2009, and 1 game out in 2008. That the Pacers are going to make the playoffs is at least equally a function of a lower hurdle as it is anything going on within the organization.

The overall point wasn't that this is exactly the same thing - it's similar, but not the same. It wasn't that this was going to happen even under O'Brien - it would not have. The point was that this was a basketball team with a lot of problems. Way more than can be explained away by either bad coaching or youth.

The point was that as they enter their summer of opportunity, I don't think they have a very sound foundation.

Oh, yeah, somebody mentioned strength of schedule - here are SoSHR's (SoS adjusted for home/road games) for these stretches (last game in Jan thru 1st game in Apr) in each of the last three years:

2008 - .495
2009 - .467
2010 - .536
2011 - .457

:laugh: Actually, I really was just responding to Unclebuck. LOL Nice to see you posting again, though. :D :)

Hicks
04-02-2011, 11:21 PM
Anyway, count et al, you make some great counterpoints, and I acknowledge what you're pointing out.

With that said, I still feel better about the team now than I did with O'Brien in charge. Though I wasn't anti-O'Brien from day 1 as some were, by last year I was done with him, and it wasn't fun having him around this year at all, for me.

I like what Vogel is trying to do, I'm glad the youth on this roster are getting more experience under their belts, and I don't necessarily think things are as gloomy as they can sometimes appear to be.

BlueNGold
04-03-2011, 12:00 AM
There was no significant stretch under Jim when he was attempting to implement his strategy where this team excelled. They never "got" Jim's system because their talents are not cut-out for it...and Jim never gave up trying to force it. Frank, on the other hand, is simply playing the guys most traditional coaches would have on the floor. What Frank is doing is not that difficult. His system is simple and guys naturally pick up on it. The simple truth is, they are competing better regardless of what you may see in the standings or box score. The games are simply more competitive.

So, is it different this year? You bet it is. The team is growing in confidence down the stretch and they believe their coach is leveraging their talents thus giving them a decent chance to win. That changes everything, so absolutely, things are different and better under Vogel.

Now, there was a stretch earlier this season under Jim that the team played well. But Jim turned around and attempted to convert Josh into Troy Murphy. That action was the beginning of the end for Jim O'Brien in Indiana. Rather than modifying his strategy to better fit the strengths of the players on this team, he had a rigid plan that was going to get implemented come hell or high water. Like forcing a shot, total fail.

BlueNGold
04-03-2011, 12:16 AM
One thing that seems to be getting glossed over in this thread is that our youth (Hibbert, Paul G., Josh, Rush, Tyler and Collison) are playing massive roles this year. That's a lot of inexperience that is clearly growing up in front of our eyes. I guess my point is that comparing 2008 and 2009 is virtually worthless and comparing an injured team from last year is even more worthless.

What might be worth comparing is Jim's record with this team versus Frank's. It's not even remotely close. Not in the way the team is playing or the results.

Bball
04-03-2011, 12:31 AM
Besides the fact that in years that were otherwise going nowhere O'Brien still relied on players that weren't in our long term plans and gave the younger players inconsistent roles, quick hooks, and DNP-CD's... and now that has changed... But there's also the not-so-small issue where the team is playing a better brand of basketball instead of that cr... errrrrr sh.... errrrrr system that O'Brien preached.

Regardless of who is chosen for the next coach I hope to never see anything like O'Brien's brand of basketball in Conseco ever again (unless it's being played by the opposing team because that means we stand a very good chance of beating that team).

And I like the point made that comparing Vogel to O'Brien is pointless. It's comparing Vogel to other potential Pacers' coaches that matters. The only reason O'Brien needs to be in that discussion at all is to make sure the team goes nowhere near O'Brien Ball again....

...IMHO...

joeyd
04-03-2011, 12:52 AM
Oh, yeah, somebody mentioned strength of schedule - here are SoSHR's (SoS adjusted for home/road games) for these stretches (last game in Jan thru 1st game in Apr) in each of the last three years:

2008 - .495
2009 - .467
2010 - .536
2011 - .457

This is strength of schedule based on the whole year, right? I'm not suggesting that anyone do this b/c it would involve a lot of work, but I think it would put Vogel's brief tenure in perspective if we knew the won-loss record of our opponents since Vogel took over. I would hazard to guess that the won-loss record is higher than it was during the time that JOB was here this year.

Day-V
04-03-2011, 02:33 AM
I really couldn't care less about stats and numbers and all that junk, all I know is that Frank Vogel has come in, won more games than he's lost, and has us heading to the playoffs.


I'm happy.

rock747
04-03-2011, 02:52 AM
I've always said that if a team didn't win at least 40 games they don't deserve to be in the playoffs

soooo, there's still a chance!

Brad8888
04-03-2011, 03:14 AM
As usual, the stats may not lie, but they can easily deceive. To diminish the accomplishments of this team in the post "Difference Maker" era through the use of statistics is a disservice both to the Pacers and to quantitative statistical analysis in my view, and I would guess quite a few others, though they were put together in a strong fashion that has a certain amount of persuasiveness to it.

However, a big difference between now and previous years is the way the team is responding in various game situations. Other than during the Lance experiment, the team has exhibited poise in several close games and won most of those as a result where before those would have been losses that probably would not have been close. They are also exhibiting the classic signs of a young promising team that is being developed (finally) in that they play to the level of the competition, winning games that are unexpected against elite teams even when those teams are performing at a pretty high level, and losing games they have no business losing by lacking focus against those teams for whatever reason. In other words, there are actual growth spurts and growing pains happening in our young players and with the young team as a whole.

These are the intangibles that statistics cannot possibly quantify because they come from the mental and emotional aspects of the game that can only be judged by watching the game and having a sense of the subtleties and nuances of it, and that is something that good coaches recognize and cultivate with their decision making, which seems to be a strength of Vogel's, especially when compared to his predecessor.

With some now, I sense an underlying negativity about Vogel, and almost a "sour grapes" tone about the success that is happening. Also, whether some like it or not, the franchise is in a better place now than it has been in since the brawl, and the coaching change is an important, though not all-encompassing, part of that.

Without the coaching change happening, the threads here would mostly be about what draft pick the Pacers will end up with and that the Pacers need to be tanking, who needs traded and bought out, and burning O'Brien in effigy and planning parties for the day he is finally gone, along with anguished fans displaying loathing and disgust, or publicly disowning the team. These things, while not having disappeared entirely, have reduced significantly overall.

But, what do most of us here know? To my knowledge, very few of us here are bloggers (it's a great gig if you can get it, to be sure), and fewer still have the ability to massage numbers to support our viewpoints the way some do.

What most here do have is the ability to watch basketball and understand what we are seeing with various levels of comprehension, and as a collective come to conclusions through productive discussions and learning from each other, with the use of a few statistics here and there to fine tune our intuitive viewpoints.

GizzyStardust
04-03-2011, 03:21 AM
soooo, there's still a chance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

Unclebuck
04-03-2011, 05:35 AM
This is strength of schedule based on the whole year, right? I'm not suggesting that anyone do this b/c it would involve a lot of work, but I think it would put Vogel's brief tenure in perspective if we knew the won-loss record of our opponents since Vogel took over. I would hazard to guess that the won-loss record is higher than it was during the time that JOB was here this year.


No, not the whole year, there might be slight differences in whole year to whole year. Counts numbers are from the period being discused in this thread, End of january through end of march. What the numbers show is that this year's schedule during that time is the easiest it has been in any of the past 4 years. what the numbers also mean is that the schedule that Jim coached this season was a whole lot tougher than what Frank has coached.

I just realized Hicks that your numbers were only until the end of March, I thought they were until the end of each season. That was my fault in not reading carefully, but it does change things when you consider that during Jim's three seasons the pacers winning % in the month of April was .615

Unclebuck
04-03-2011, 06:01 AM
With some now, I sense an underlying negativity about Vogel, and almost a "sour grapes" tone about the success that is happening. Also, whether some like it or not, the franchise is in a better place now than it has been in since the brawl, and the coaching change is an important, though not all-encompassing, part of that.

Without the coaching change happening, the threads here would mostly be about what draft pick the Pacers will end up with and that the Pacers need to be tanking, who needs traded and bought out, and burning O'Brien in effigy and planning parties for the day he is finally gone, along with anguished fans displaying loathing and disgust, or publicly disowning the team. These things, while not having disappeared entirely, have reduced significantly overall.

But, what do most of us here know? To my knowledge, very few of us here are bloggers (it's a great gig if you can get it, to be sure), and fewer still have the ability to massage numbers to support our viewpoints the way some do.



Let me address your points in order.

1) Sour grapes - No sour grapes from me, just trying to keep things in perspective as each of us decides if we want Frank back and how many of these current players do we want back.

2) Not sure about that, Jim coached the team to 36 victories twice before and with the strength of schedule since Jim left, if he would have kept coaching, who knows. It looked like Jim has lost the team last season too and they played pretty well to end the season

3) I don't think Count massaged the numbers anymore than Hicks did (in this thread). Hicks started the thread with his major point being to compare the won loss record from end of janary until and of macrh.over the past 4 seasons. OK that is worthwhile and if that is then it is also worthwhile to look at the strength of schedule during those same periods.

There have been many threads over the past 2 and a half months discussing the coaching differences between Frank and Jim and how everyone liks Frank more,I think we have that covered. This thread as it was started was to address a specific ppoint that I guess I off-handedly brought up.

vnzla81
04-03-2011, 10:51 AM
So we got to beat a better NY team with Amare and Melo twice, we got to beat a way better team in Chicago once and we also got to win a game againts Boston, can somebody please remind me who was the guy guarding Amare when JOB was still the coach? do I think we win this games with Posey as our PF and TJ as our PG? Helllllllll Noooooo!!!

cinotimz
04-03-2011, 11:12 AM
Another incredibly entertaining thread. Amazing to watch some analyze, rationalize, and conceptualize.

And yet its all so simple.

With JOB, they never were a playoff team.

Now with Vogel, they are.

With JOB, they never were really close to being a .500 team.

Now with Vogel, they are over .500.

Is it because of strength of schedule or time of year or strength of the draft?

No. You play who the schedule says you play.

The reasons are Vogel is a better communicator, a better strategist and just plainly a better coach. He has had almost no practice time, no training camps and had to do the best he could with what he had on the fly. And he has far exceeded what JOB was able to do-in spite JOB having plenty of practice time and training camps. He plays different players in different rotations and whatta ya know...They are more successful. There is little doubt in my mind that Vogel could coach any of the teams JOB has ever coached and ended up with a better result. JOB is an arrogant *******. With little respect for his players or the fans. He publicly chastised both. If you cant see these things, then its quite clear why-you have blinders on.

Ozwalt72
04-03-2011, 12:03 PM
He has had almost no practice time, no training camps and had to do the best he could with what he had on the fly.

Well, Not sure I agree. Vogel's been an assistant under JOb for each of these teams. He already has the familiarity with the players. It's not like he's an outside guy stepping in. He's changed the focus of the offense, yes, but he's also kept the defense relatively the same scheme-wise. And it's worsened.

I still think he's a better fit than OB, and would be interested in seeing what he would do with the full time gig.

Peck
04-03-2011, 12:59 PM
Another incredibly entertaining thread. Amazing to watch some analyze, rationalize, and conceptualize.

And yet its all so simple.

With JOB, they never were a playoff team.

Now with Vogel, they are.

With JOB, they never were really close to being a .500 team.

Now with Vogel, they are over .500.

Is it because of strength of schedule or time of year or strength of the draft?

No. You play who the schedule says you play.

The reasons are Vogel is a better communicator, a better strategist and just plainly a better coach. He has had almost no practice time, no training camps and had to do the best he could with what he had on the fly. And he has far exceeded what JOB was able to do-in spite JOB having plenty of practice time and training camps. He plays different players in different rotations and whatta ya know...They are more successful. There is little doubt in my mind that Vogel could coach any of the teams JOB has ever coached and ended up with a better result. JOB is an arrogant *******. With little respect for his players or the fans. He publicly chastised both. If you cant see these things, then its quite clear why-you have blinders on.

How dare you use common sense as a basis for your reasoning. Where is your advanced statistical analysis, where are your shot charts?

The only reason anyone would even bother to look at strength of schedule would be to in some way try and justify their own belief that Jim O'Brien was a good coach caught in a bad situation. Anyone else would just look and see that Frank with the exact same group of players is winning and most likely taking to the playoffs that Jim said could not make it.

BlueNGold
04-03-2011, 02:16 PM
I would agree with most of cinotimz post except the part that Vogel would have a better result with any of Jim's teams. I'd say he'd have a better record than Jim 75% of the time (yes, that might be giving Jim too much credit). The 25% represent instances where Jim happens to have the right personnel. IOW, a broken clock is still right once (or twice) a day.

Whether Jim's system could ever lead to a championship is in the eye of the beholder. He had some success in Boston until it was exposed and he got swept. Personally, I've never seen his style have much success in the finals. While his style is not Phoenix/Dallas, it's not the worst comparison and even with extreme talent those teams are often exposed in the playoffs even though their regular season records were astronomical.

While everyone may not agree that defense wins championships, I suspect most believe that it gets you there faster than jacking up threes.

Bball
04-03-2011, 02:41 PM
Here's a question for the stat guys...
The Pacers do get broken down it seems on defense and allow some uncontested things at the basket (in the half court)... but what about points allowed in transition?

That was always a big complaint I had with O'Brien's system is that it left the team vulnerable to easy transition baskets.. and several per game. I'm curious if we've put a lid on that or not. What do the statistics say?

kester99
04-03-2011, 03:37 PM
The only reason anyone would even bother to look at strength of schedule would be to in some way try and justify their own belief that Jim O'Brien was a good coach caught in a bad situation.

That seems a bit over the top to me...particularly since some of the people involved in the discussion have talked about Strength of Schedule quite a lot over the years. Heck (Peck) I was looking at an article by Count55 on the subject from 2010 yesterday.


He's changed the focus of the offense, yes, but he's also kept the defense relatively the same scheme-wise. And it's worsened.

Without digging too deep into ooky, creepy statistics, let me throw this out. The Pacers' opponents Points/FGA is down ever so slightly under Vogel, compared to O'Brien....I mean .999 the same. So, by that measure, the defense is equal to JOB's time.

Now, opponents PPG has gone up, but so has ours.

Comparing a simple index (pts+rbs+assts+blks+steals, minus shots, TOs, PFs...all adjusted for time) from pre-Vogel to Vogel....our opponents performance has dropped, while ours has gone up. Opponents index = .979 of preVogel index. Ours = 1.018 of preVogel performance.

None of that says worse defense to me.

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

Let me add a thought here on Strength of Schedule and its place in the discussion. It's obvious to me why we'd include the topic when we're comparing team performance from year to year for certain months, BUT if you factor in the Young_Team_Playing_Up_or_Down_To_Their_Opponents_L evel (in)constant, then to some extent SoS means less. In other words, I'm speculating here that even with a tougher schedule, this team would have played up to that level somewhat.

spazzxb
04-03-2011, 05:07 PM
How dare you use common sense as a basis for your reasoning. Where is your advanced statistical analysis, where are your shot charts?

The only reason anyone would even bother to look at strength of schedule would be to in some way try and justify their own belief that Jim O'Brien was a good coach caught in a bad situation. Anyone else would just look and see that Frank with the exact same group of players is winning and most likely taking to the playoffs that Jim said could not make it.


One would only ignore it because it hurts their argument. We Knew this season was front loaded well before JOB got fired. With or without JOB this team didn't achieve what I was hoping for so why should we now be impressed? I am hopeful to make the playoffs but if we do we just squeaked in.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=60166

BlueNGold
04-03-2011, 05:39 PM
Whether or not Frank is the next John Wooden or the next Isiah Thomas, there is one thing we know.

The team has played better when Jim O'Brien did not or could not implement his stretch-the-floor strategy with the particular team. Here are the key examples:

1) The five game win streak at the beginning of the year last year. Troy Murphy was out and the team immediately started playing better. Night and day better. Dahntay had to bite his tongue but he still said he knew why the team was winning. Jersey knew the same thing and followed through with benching and now trading Troy.

2) The team was winning at the beginning of this season until Jim pushed McBob out at the beginning of December to launch threes. Teams didn't respect it and played off of him...cheating toward Hibbert. A few teams outright doubled Hibbert. Hibbert's confidence plummets and the team goes in a tailspin.

3) Vogel takes over and we have another 5 game winning streak and except for a locker room issue the team has been playing very well. Even with it, they are above .500.

You can talk all about SOS, but the players have torn Jim O'Brien a new one. There's no way they played as well with Jim at the helm...and I doubt that feeling has been for just this season. Nah, this team is better right now even with a bunch of young players getting the minutes. Had they tried to run Jim's system it would have been a disaster. As it is, we are going to the playoffs.

Yes, the playoffs. You can talk all about our record versus another season but the fact remains that more teams are doing worse than us this year than last. So, relative to other teams we are doing better this year.

Peck
04-03-2011, 05:52 PM
One would only ignore it because it hurts their argument. We Knew this season was front loaded well before JOB got fired. With or without JOB this team didn't achieve what I was hoping for so why should we now be impressed? I am hopeful to make the playoffs but if we do we just squeaked in.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=60166

A win is a win is a win.

A los is a loss is a loss.

Every team in the NBA plays 82 games. Each team has 41 games at home & 41 games away.

Numbers are a funny thing. They really don't lie, they can be manipulated and cherry picked to glean what we want from them though.

You can view the record of the team prior to the liberation (my words) of our ball club and state that the schedule was tougher and might be right.

I can view the record since the uprising (probably your words) and say that we have already won more games than we did the rest of the season in 11 less games and be right as well.

It is then up to our prejudice to determine which fact is more accurate because at the end of the day neither is wrong from a pure number standpoint.

spazzxb
04-03-2011, 06:36 PM
My main aurgument against firing Jim mid season was the assumed "no one on staff was capable of taking over. I did not see the value of bringing in an outsider for a couple of months. While I don't really think it made much of a difference performance whys, the fans are happier now (which I believe was the main reason it happened). Vogel has proven to be capable and didn't wreck the ship, however this team still has not outperformed what was expected of them under the old coach. Vogel gets his first interview, he isn't entitled to anything more.

What about the people who hated JOB for playing Mike Dunleavy, (are they somehow magically right now? The ones who called Foster a scrub who shouldn't be in the league? These statements went hand in hand with the coach hate that people seem to be bragging about now.

Day-V
04-03-2011, 07:48 PM
What about the people who hated JOB for playing Mike Dunleavy, (are they somehow magically right now? The ones who called Foster a scrub who shouldn't be in the league? These statements went hand in hand with the coach hate that people seem to be bragging about now.

While people were not happy with the AMOUNT of playing time those guys were getting, I think most agreed that they still deserved minutes.

The "hand in hand" statements regarding coach hate primarily (but not only) centered around Josh and Tyler's inconsistent playing time and DNP-CD's when they were replaced by the likes of Posey and S. Jones in the line-up.

ilive4sports
04-03-2011, 08:32 PM
My main aurgument against firing Jim mid season was the assumed "no one on staff was capable of taking over. I did not see the value of bringing in an outsider for a couple of months. While I don't really think it made much of a difference performance whys, the fans are happier now (which I believe was the main reason it happened). Vogel has proven to be capable and didn't wreck the ship, however this team still has not outperformed what was expected of them under the old coach. Vogel gets his first interview, he isn't entitled to anything more.

What about the people who hated JOB for playing Mike Dunleavy, (are they somehow magically right now? The ones who called Foster a scrub who shouldn't be in the league? These statements went hand in hand with the coach hate that people seem to be bragging about now.


I couldn't disagree with that bolded statement more. Most people had this team finishing under .500 this season. With Vogel we are over .500 by a couple of games. That is certainly outperforming the expectations we had for JOB. And he is clearly exceeding what Jim actually did, not the expectations of what we had of him doing which is even more impressive.

Unclebuck
04-03-2011, 10:09 PM
There is little doubt in my mind that Vogel could coach any of the teams JOB has ever coached and ended up with a better result.

So you think that Vogel would have gotten that Celtics team to the NBA Finals?

Unclebuck
04-03-2011, 10:13 PM
The only reason anyone would even bother to look at strength of schedule would be to in some way try and justify their own belief that Jim O'Brien was a good coach caught in a bad situation. Anyone else would just look and see that Frank with the exact same group of players is winning and most likely taking to the playoffs that Jim said could not make it.


So I'm inferring from your comments that strength of schedule is a stat that is out of bounds for rational discussion. Ok, but I hope that is applied across the board

Peck
04-03-2011, 10:28 PM
So I'm inferring from your comments that strength of schedule is a stat that is out of bounds for rational discussion. Ok, but I hope that is applied across the board

So now your going to argue stats.? You who is Mr. I don't need to see the stats. I watch the game.

We both watch the games, you mean your going to tell me that you don't look at the club and see the difference between the time prior to Frank and after?

Major Cold
04-03-2011, 10:35 PM
I think the major difference between Vogel and JOB is pride. Vogel is going to Bird, and most likely calling Pitino. He is seeking advice. So the question is:

Is Vogel a puppet coach of Bird? I wouldn't go that far. But Vogel is young, has grown. But to say that he could endure and bring this lack luster roster that we have had the last three years, to a better overall result is a stretch.

To say that JOB is the same coach, or that the NBA is the same as it was when the Celtics made it to the ECFs, is a stretch.

JOB is not a worse coach than Vogel. But I think that JOB's stubbornness and narrow vision gets him slightly worse results with the same type of roster.

NEITHER CAN BRING THIS TEAM TO THE NEXT STAGE. Neither could bring this team to the second round. JVG could, SVG could, Avery Johnson might, Adelman could, and many others.

Unfortunately those guys are not walking in the door. The real question is: can Vogel be that guy with growth? Or is there someone out there who can?

Unclebuck
04-03-2011, 10:47 PM
We both watch the games, you mean your going to tell me that you don't look at the club and see the difference between the time prior to Frank and after?


Not at all, but that was not the point Hicks started the thread with. He started the thread in response to my off handed remark about Pacers playing well towards the end of the seasons that JOB coached. Hicks was talking about the record, not how well or poorly the team was playing, and he was talking about the record during a specific portion of each season. So I think it is 100% in bounds to look at the strength of schedule.

Are we beating the Lakers, Heat and the Celtics or the Wizards, Cavs and Kings? I think that is a very relevant question in light of Hicks original post in this thread.

In more general terms I never considered looking at who the pacers beat as some strange stat that only some statisticion can understand.

If I am out of the country or some cave and cannot follow the pacers and when i get back I learn the pacers have won 10 straight I'll say great, but my next thoguth is who did they play, who did they beat. By any measure it is a very fair question, and yet peck you are acting like it is some weird stat that is difficult to understand.

The bottonline: who the pacers play is not a stat - that is an important reality

BlueNGold
04-03-2011, 11:04 PM
The NBA is an odd beast. Let me make just one point why using stats in this type of case is simply a waste of time.

Teams often take the night off...especially down the stretch. If Team A locked into a position and is overconfident, they may give Team B a lead. That's what happened a couple years ago when we had huge leads that "strangely" evaporated in the latter stages of games. While some wondered why we "collapsed", it was obvious to many of us who have played games.

Don't you remember taking it easy on some teams or guys if you are playing one-on-one. Who here has allowed an opponent to get a lead purely for the challenge of snatching the victory. Imagine if you played 5 grueling games in a week and had a patsy on game 4. The temptation to toy with them or take a break is pretty strong. Sometimes the patsy ends up winning. What does that do to the stats, particularly a small sample size.

Where am I going with this? I am saying that this is one example of why relying on a tiny sample size of games to explain human actions...and expecting to make sense of it statistically is a fool's game. What about injuries? Locker room issues? The list of factors are simply too long, so you end up comparing apples to oranges.

Similarly, there are probably numerous examples of why attempting to compare how the Pacers played down the stretch in 2008 or 2009 versus this year is pure nonsense. There are too many factors, basketball and non-basketball in nature.

Unclebuck
04-03-2011, 11:23 PM
Teams often take the night off...especially down the stretch.

I've always made the point that the two most inpredictable months of the NBA season are November and April. A lot of teams come out of training camp/preason just not ready to play so some lesser teams can get some cheap wins in November. April is even crazier because so many teams have different agendas byt that time in the season.

And no I don't buy the argument that in order to play well in the playoffs a team needs to be playing well at the end of the season. I think that is hogwash.

I do think record after allstar break is significant, but the Lakers they were 14-1 since the break, if they were to lose 5 out of their last 8 games to end the season I think that means nothing at all. Teams like that as long as they play well at some point during the season, they know they can do it in the playoffs

Infinite MAN_force
04-04-2011, 01:23 AM
For those who are saying the recent success of the team is more due to strength of schedule than the difference in coaching, I think one thing is being overlooked.

One of the primary frustrations with Obrien was the tendency to rely too heavily on veterans at the expense of developing our future core players, the justification was that these vets gave us the "best chance to win"

Some have supposed that the team is not actually doing any better under Vogel, but instead that we are getting the exact same results.

If we accept that as true, that still amounts to an indictment of Obrien's rotation decisions. If Vogel is relying on the youth and getting the same results, than this proves that Jim Obrien was in fact wrong to overuse the veterans. If Jim Obrien was right, we should be doing worse.

Instead, we have young inconsistent players going through their growing pains before our eyes, and WINNING THE SAME AMOUNT OF GAMES.

Many who criticized Obrien were not as concerned with the win/loss column as they were with player development. Why were we relying so heavily on veterans that had no future with the team? The most recent example? Posey over either McRoberts or Hansbrough for large portions of the year. Both of these players have been major contributors in recent weeks, and the team is certainly not any worse off. The justification that Posey gave us a better chance to win is bunk, we have done just as well if not better without him.

I feel that anyone who said "these veterans stink" we should be playing the youth... and perhaps even suggested that we would be just as well off, or maybe better... should have a right to feel vindicated now.

spazzxb
04-04-2011, 01:51 AM
So now your going to argue stats.? You who is Mr. I don't need to see the stats. I watch the game.

We both watch the games, you mean your going to tell me that you don't look at the club and see the difference between the time prior to Frank and after?

Some things did change;He got rid of small ball (primarily using Danny at the 4). He committed to Tyler and Josh both getting minutes. He also pulled DJ off the shelve, for better or worse. Vogel also hasn't been afraid to play Josh and Foster together(allowing Josh to backup Tyler).The thing is small ball with Danny was effective and I am not certain it was a positive to completely eliminate it from are aresonal.

Does any of this translate into wins, thats like asking an Owl how to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie pop.

Unclebuck
04-04-2011, 08:17 AM
Why were we relying so heavily on veterans that had no future with the team? The most recent example? Posey over either McRoberts or Hansbrough for large portions of the year. Both of these players have been major contributors in recent weeks, and the team is certainly not any worse off. The justification that Posey gave us a better chance to win is bunk, we have done just as well if not better without him.




I think the part I put in bold is just not accurate. Besides Posey who else (and keep in mind Posey was averaging less than 20 minutes per game this season when Jim was the coach)

Who else? Ford was benched. Dunleavy was gettign minutes but many are calling for him to move back into the starting lineup now.

Isn't D. Jones a veteran, JOB didn't play him,

Tyler had started 8 straight games And was getting good minutes.

Josh had started up until the Janaury.

So IMO besides Posey who was playing less than 20 minutes per game, I think your statement as you phrased it is simply not accurate.

There were a lot of arguments to fire Jim, but this is not a good one

vnzla81
04-04-2011, 08:31 AM
UB I think he was talking about JOB during this three years, by the way starting and finishing games is a different thing, Tyler started 8 games but didn't play much and didn't finish games.

Unclebuck
04-04-2011, 08:54 AM
Tyler started 8 games but didn't play much and didn't finish games.


Tyler averaged 23 minutes per game in the 9 starts under JOB. Then in Vogel's first 9 games as coach, Tyler averaged 22 minutes per game

Brad8888
04-04-2011, 11:02 AM
Some things did change;He got rid of small ball (primarily using Danny at the 4). He committed to Tyler and Josh both getting minutes. He also pulled DJ off the shelve, for better or worse. Vogel also hasn't been afraid to play Josh and Foster together(allowing Josh to backup Tyler).The thing is small ball with Danny was effective and I am not certain it was a positive to completely eliminate it from are aresonal.

Does any of this translate into wins, thats like asking an Owl how to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie pop.

He also immediately got rid of the "stretch 4", and came out and stated that the team would not be taking bad shots anymore. The three point shot has resumed a far less prominent part of the offensive structure now (i.e. they are not chucking up threes early in the clock nearly as often) and are frequently outscoring the opposition at the line due to focusing on playing the game inside/out as opposed to outside/in.

The point is that Mr. Owl actually got to the Tootsie Roll center of the Tootsie Pop by recognizing that licking and licking and licking from the outside in an effort to eventually open up the middle was not nearly as effective as simply going straight to the middle and opening the entire thing up quickly as a result allowing access to both the wonderful flavor of the perimeter candy as well as the fudgy goodness of the middle at nearly the same time.

Mr. Owl was pretty smart...

Infinite MAN_force
04-04-2011, 11:20 AM
I think the part I put in bold is just not accurate. Besides Posey who else (and keep in mind Posey was averaging less than 20 minutes per game this season when Jim was the coach)

Who else? Ford was benched. Dunleavy was gettign minutes but many are calling for him to move back into the starting lineup now.

Isn't D. Jones a veteran, JOB didn't play him,

Tyler had started 8 straight games And was getting good minutes.

Josh had started up until the Janaury.

So IMO besides Posey who was playing less than 20 minutes per game, I think your statement as you phrased it is simply not accurate.

There were a lot of arguments to fire Jim, but this is not a good one


It is a larger commentary over JOB's entire tenure here. Posey is the best example from this season. Posey was always in the rotation over either Mcroberts or Hansbrough... despite lackluster play, Posey seemed to be the one player that Jim refused to take out of the rotation.

Last season after Hansbrough went down, we were subjected to all kinds of goofy small ball lineups, particularly those including D. Jones or Dunleavy playing power forward. Apparently Josh Mcroberts was SO bad that he couldn't even get off the bench behind Murphy... based on what we have seen this year, that assertion seems laughable now.

What about AJ Price's inexplicable benching last season?

Many young players on this team, while not necessarily out of the rotation, have been on a consistently short leash. Hibbert was still getting jerked around as recently as last season, being replaced with Murphy as starting center at one point.

There has been a consistent theme of good stretches of play going unrewarded, and a single mistake being justification to be yanked out of the game. These complaints are nothing new they have been made loudly and consistently over the past couple of seasons.

It has also been confirmed since the firing that the players felt the exact same way.

Kid Minneapolis
04-04-2011, 11:43 AM
Ugh... still defending J'Ob are we?

The only statements I need to make regarding J'Ob and my desire to have him removed are below:

1) I endorsed the guy for a long time when he came here. It wasn't until about... the "irrelevant" scenario that I started to harbor the idea of showing him the door.
2) Over time, I disagreed with the style of basketball he was trying to install here.
3) I disapproved of how he handled himself in public statements and statements about his players.
4) I disapproved with his overall record while he was here.

That's all I really need to say. It's my stance on J'Ob, and "Frankly", I don't feel like I should have to keep defending the stance. He had his chance, he didn't meet what I expected out of the team, his style of ball did not fit my desire in what I'd like to see the Pacers play, his comments to the press were baffling and surly, and ultimately, he lost a lot.

If the J'Ob-defenders don't like those reasons, then I don't know what to tell ya. All the hypothetical situations and second-guessing in the world by his defenders really have no effect on me. He's gone and I've moved on.

I felt it was time for him to go. Nice guy, good mind --- needed to move on. I had a wait-and-see approach with Vogel when they brought him on, had a ton of questions, but I was ready for change. He came in and immediately said things that made me perk up as a basketball and Pacer fan, mainly with the style changes. I like his demeanor in press statements, I like the way he treats his players. He's won more games than he's lost, which is saying quite a bit when you consider the dude has never been a head coach, and he was thrown a train-wreck of a team that had lost a majority of it's games over the previous weeks.

Am I ready to officially hand over the keys to him? I'm still evaluating him. I think he's done a decent job so far, but I'd like to keep options open, also. If he ends up being our coach, I wouldn't be upset. But I know this --- I feel the removal of Jim O'Brien was the right decision --- all the arguing in the world doesn't change that fact. I know how to think for myself and make logical decisions and that is the decision I came to early in this season.

Since86
04-04-2011, 01:11 PM
Tyler averaged 23 minutes per game in the 9 starts under JOB. Then in Vogel's first 9 games as coach, Tyler averaged 22 minutes per game

And who was finishing close games? Tyler or James Posey?

James Posey.

In crunch time, Jim ran back to his vet while Josh and Tyler rode the pine. Who finishes games is a lot more important than who started, or how many minutes they got. It shows who the coach trusts, and who he thinks executes his schemes the best.

James Freaking Posey.

BlueNGold
04-04-2011, 09:37 PM
Tyler averaged 23 minutes per game in the 9 starts under JOB. Then in Vogel's first 9 games as coach, Tyler averaged 22 minutes per game

...and for the record, Tyler has averaged over 27 minutes per game under Vogel versus 12 minutes per game under Jim factoring in 11 DNP's.

The result? Frank has won 18 games in 34 chances for a .529 winning percentage versus Jim's 17 games in 44 chances for .386.

spazzxb
04-04-2011, 10:05 PM
...and for the record, Tyler has averaged over 27 minutes per game under Vogel versus 12 minutes per game under Jim factoring in 11 DNP's.

The result? Frank has won 18 games in 34 chances for a .529 winning percentage versus Jim's 17 games in 44 chances for .386.

A few weeks before the season started people were saying he would never play again. Are you trying to say he didn't develop at all this year? You should be ashamed of what you did to those numbers. lol

BlueNGold
04-04-2011, 10:31 PM
A few weeks before the season started people were saying he would never play again. Are you trying to say he didn't develop at all this year? You should be ashamed of what you did to those numbers. lol

I did not realize the insane asylum had internet access.

Hicks
04-05-2011, 01:29 AM
I'm sure whomever throws out the final statistic in the face of their opponent will 'win' this basketball argument, as is often the case.

ilive4sports
04-05-2011, 02:16 AM
I'm sure whomever throws out the final statistic in the face of their opponent will 'win' this basketball argument, as is often the case.

Do it and close the thread, then you win. Like you did in the last person to post in this thread wins thread, which was quite funny btw.

Plus you should do it as I believe we are on the same page so if you win, I win:happydanc

spazzxb
04-05-2011, 03:35 AM
I did not realize the insane asylum had internet access.

You're the one still worried about firing a man with no job. Honestly anyone who is still rocking that mood has an opinion that has 0 value to me. Only children, the unfortunate, and those with nothing to say resort to name calling.

BillS
04-05-2011, 09:37 AM
...and for the record, Tyler has averaged over 27 minutes per game under Vogel versus 12 minutes per game under Jim factoring in 11 DNP's.

The result? Frank has won 18 games in 34 chances for a .529 winning percentage versus Jim's 17 games in 44 chances for .386.

So you are saying the ONLY reason they won those games under Frank is because he played Tyler? :rolleyes:

Please repeat after me:

"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"

Hicks
04-05-2011, 10:01 AM
Please repeat after me:

"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"

Tell that to the +/- stat.

BillS
04-05-2011, 11:46 AM
Tell that to the +/- stat.

The stat alone doesn't care, it is just data. It's the INTERPRETATION that often assumes correlation is causation.

What are you correlating +/- with in order to prove something else? If there are other factors or exceptions, you can't assume the +/- is the causal factor.

Hicks
04-05-2011, 12:47 PM
The stat alone doesn't care, it is just data. It's the INTERPRETATION that often assumes correlation is causation.

I realize that, Bill. Pardon me for not being more specific, but I would have hoped my meaning was understood all the same.

Since86
04-05-2011, 01:33 PM
So you are saying the ONLY reason they won those games under Frank is because he played Tyler? :rolleyes:

Please repeat after me:

"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"

Is Tyler the only reason why that number switched? No, but Tyler is a pretty damn good representative of the changes Frank made.

Or do we already forget "We have to change the identity of this team. Drastically."

And then how he went on about how he wanted to play "smashmouth" basketball, and how the team "doesn't take bad shots anymore."

I could keep going, but clearly it's pointless.

BillS
04-05-2011, 03:04 PM
Is Tyler the only reason why that number switched? No, but Tyler is a pretty damn good representative of the changes Frank made.

Or do we already forget "We have to change the identity of this team. Drastically."

And then how he went on about how he wanted to play "smashmouth" basketball, and how the team "doesn't take bad shots anymore."

I could keep going, but clearly it's pointless.

You are fine by saying it is one example of many that prove what the changes were. That's valid.

The post I was replying to used it as the ONLY statement, as if that IN AND OF ITSELF was sufficient to prove the point. "Tyler has averaged" more under Vogel, "The result?" the better record. Can't get more definite about relying on a single example than that.

I'm not even trying to debate the overall issue with this response, just wishing people would realize that nothing stands alone, not even their personal favorite stat.

Clearly the team has done better, but if it was due to one (or even two or three) things to the exclusion of everything else, the job of coaching a team would be easy.

BlueNGold
04-05-2011, 10:40 PM
You're the one still worried about firing a man with no job. Honestly anyone who is still rocking that mood has an opinion that has 0 value to me. Only children, the unfortunate, and those with nothing to say resort to name calling.

It gets tiring to repeat this, but some of the PacerDigest accounts cannot change the mood setting. It must be some of the older accounts because BBall and a few others cannot change their mood settings. Shade actually changed mine to what it is...so you can take that up with him. I PM'ed him, but haven't heard anything yet.

Perhaps it's all a cruel joke. In any event, it's not the worst mood to be chained to. If I do get hold of Shade, I'll ask about an insane mood for you. I kid, I kid...

Major Cold
04-05-2011, 10:43 PM
Do it and close the thread, then you win. Like you did in the last person to post in this thread wins thread, which was quite funny btw.

Plus you should do it as I believe we are on the same page so if you win, I win:happydanc


Hicks is winning. No he is bi-winning. Go get ya some Tiger Blood.

BlueNGold
04-05-2011, 10:43 PM
So you are saying the ONLY reason they won those games under Frank is because he played Tyler? :rolleyes:

Please repeat after me:

"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"
"Correlation is not causation"

No need to get your panties in a knot. Tyler is just the prime example of the change in strategy...one that works better not just for the team but several of the individual players. If you don't believe me, just ask the players quoted in my sig. I suspect the entire team along with Slick and Mark agree with me...