PDA

View Full Version : Give Lance a chance!



doctor-h
02-05-2012, 10:16 AM
I for one am proud of Lance. He is trying to do the right thing. He is listening to his coaches, being a great teammate and making real progress as a player and person. Let him play his game as long as he stays under control. He is obviously better with the ball in his hands. He can make things happen. He is the best facilitator on the team. I think you tie his hands when you expect him to go stand in the corner and tone his game down so much. I wish while Hill is out, they would give him AJ's minutes at the point. He lights up with the ball in his hands and I think as long as he is under control and distributing and creating he can be a big plus for us. His defense has been much better than I expected also. I understand what the coaches are doing with him and it is working. Just show him some trust and let him be rewarded for the work he has done.

xIndyFan
02-05-2012, 10:36 AM
lance is being given a chance. and mostly doing ok.

but the thing that will lead to more minutes for lance [& AJ & lou et al] is better play. the pacers are starving for reserves that can soak up minutes without the team getting killed in the process. one thing i am certain about is better play will result in more playing time.

doctor-h
02-05-2012, 10:54 AM
I definitely agree with that. In last nights game, Lou, Lance, Tyler and Dahntay were all doing a good job, the starters were struggling and obviously tired. The reservers were taken out and West and Hibbert returned and all the defensive energy left the game. Those reserve players were doing the job so why not let them do it. In the first half Lance was playing well. He had 2 steals, a rebound and 2 assists in about 4 minutes. He was also playing good defense and with a lot of energy which was definitely needed last night. I don't mean he deserved 30 minutes, but he deserved more than 5 or 6.

Brad8888
02-05-2012, 07:56 PM
Lance needs to "do the dance" for the chance to advance, perchance? Maybe he should be willin' to keep chillin' like a villain to make his time on the floor more fulfillin'.

DrFife
02-05-2012, 10:20 PM
Lance needs to "do the dance" for the chance to advance, perchance? Maybe he should be willin' to keep chillin' like a villain to make his time on the floor more fulfillin'.

I smell another round of haiku coming....

xBulletproof
02-05-2012, 10:37 PM
Lance is getting more of a chance than his play has warranted, honestly. He has more shots than points, and more turnovers than assists. The guy he has defended is shooting over 50% from the field in a year where the league is shooting 44% so far.

So we should keep playing him more? I'm not so sure about that.

.

graphic-er
02-05-2012, 10:57 PM
Lance just needs to score more, especially with Hill out.

Pacer Fan
02-05-2012, 10:57 PM
I think he has been getting his chances, probably more then he should get. Alot of teams would send him to the D-League.

I want to see the Pacers win, I'd like to see an upgrade to the team in the PG/SG position to play along side Hill. Lance can sit on the bench unless it's garbage time and keep developing his game thru the summer and try again next year.

spazzxb
02-05-2012, 10:59 PM
Lance is getting more of a chance than his play has warranted, honestly. He has more shots than points, and more turnovers than assists. The guy he has defended is shooting over 50% from the field in a year where the league is shooting 44% so far.

So we should keep playing him more? I'm not so sure about that.

.

You might want to supply a source for your numbers, if you want to be convincing. How many times do guys give up the ball without making progress when he is guarding them? How many times have you seen someone blow by him?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Strummer
02-05-2012, 11:07 PM
You might want to supply a source for your numbers, if you want to be convincing. How many times do guys give up the ball without making progress when he is guarding them? How many times have you seen someone blow by him?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

I agree, he's played very well defensively. He seems to be a clever defender.

I think they've told him to play D and pass the ball. And that's what he's doing. He seems to have a good attitude and be very coachable. I've been impressed.

The next step is for him to find his offense. Right now he knows he's not supposed to be an early option. So it makes him tentative. And then when he does try to score, I think he's wondering if he's making the right decision. The uncertainty affects his confidence. So he just needs more time to get used to his role.

I would love to see him play more minutes. I don't want the starters getting burned out with this crazy schedule. Depth is supposed to be our strength but so far Frank seems to be trying to run a more traditional rotation. Maybe that's because it's still early in the season.

ilive4sports
02-05-2012, 11:49 PM
Lance is getting a chance and has AJ's minutes. Its just that GH is hurt so we need AJ to play now too.

CJ Jones
02-06-2012, 12:23 AM
Lance is getting more of a chance than his play has warranted, honestly. He has more shots than points, and more turnovers than assists. The guy he has defended is shooting over 50% from the field in a year where the league is shooting 44% so far.

So we should keep playing him more? I'm not so sure about that.

.

Lance is getting just over two shots a game hard to really judge his shooting on that. He's shooting close to 47% in his last 14 so he's getting better. He's also stepped his defense up since early on so I'd assume his defensive numbers have gone down recently too. I can't figure out how to look that up though.:D

jeffg-body
02-06-2012, 02:27 AM
To me it looks like Lance is playing a bit too tenative with decisions. It seems like he is so concentrated on getting his teammates the ball that he is passing when he was in position for his shot. Remember that he is still a really young guy and to me it seems that he is getting better and better each time he gets good minutes.

Hicks
02-06-2012, 12:51 PM
My intuition with his situation is that eventually he's going to round into shape in terms of his ability to drive and finish and to create his own shots from mid range, and when that happens the defense will adjust, and when that happens his passing will really start to shine. That's when he'll have arrived, and from there it's a matter of keeping it up (especially avoiding a let down on his surprisingly improved defense), developing his 3-ball, and of course keep his nose clean with any/all off-court distractions.

Barring a left turn, I think this is where we're headed over the next year or two.

ECKrueger
02-06-2012, 12:53 PM
Sounds about right to me, Hicks.

Mackey_Rose
02-06-2012, 01:31 PM
You might want to supply a source for your numbers, if you want to be convincing. How many times do guys give up the ball without making progress when he is guarding them? How many times have you seen someone blow by him?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM

Per-48 Production for Lance: 10.3 points on 13.3 shots with an eFG% of .290, 7.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 6.5 turnovers = PER of 3.1

Per-48 Production against Lance: 24.1 points on 20.2 shots with an eFG% of .532, 8.2 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 3.4 turnovers = PER of 20.6

He has a net-negative PER of 17.5

ksuttonjr76
02-06-2012, 02:04 PM
Personally, I like Lance size and potential talent. Thus far and IMHO, most of his mistakes have been rookie mistakes, but not the type of mistakes that gives me cause for concern. He's better defensively than I would have given credit for originally. Honestly, once Lance starts learning the FUNDAMENTALS of the game, I believe he will be a much better player. Each time I watch him play, I can tell that he's trying his HARDEST to fight the temptation of resorting back to his streetball skills. Lance is raw, unrefined talent.

As a side note, I would LOVE for Vogel to give him the scoring green light in our next blowout game just so we can see what his "unrestricted" talent looks like.

Eleazar
02-06-2012, 02:05 PM
With Hill out and Hansbrough and Price not being able to hit the broad side of the barn we need one of two things to happen. Either Vogel needs to make sure either Granger or George are always on the court (not a bad idea to do anyways) or Lance needs to start looking to score more.

ksuttonjr76
02-06-2012, 02:37 PM
With Hill out and Hansbrough and Price not being able to hit the broad side of the barn we need one of two things to happen. Either Vogel needs to make sure either Granger or George are always on the court (not a bad idea to do anyways) or Lance needs to start looking to score more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the rotations have been reflecting that as of late.

xBulletproof
02-06-2012, 03:40 PM
http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM

Per-48 Production for Lance: 10.3 points on 13.3 shots with an eFG% of .290, 7.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 6.5 turnovers = PER of 3.1

Per-48 Production against Lance: 24.1 points on 20.2 shots with an eFG% of .532, 8.2 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 3.4 turnovers = PER of 20.6

He has a net-negative PER of 17.5

Beast.

Eleazar
02-06-2012, 03:54 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the rotations have been reflecting that as of late.

You would have a better idea of that than me, as of late I have only been able to watch the games through the box score.

CJ Jones
02-06-2012, 05:23 PM
http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM

Per-48 Production for Lance: 10.3 points on 13.3 shots with an eFG% of .290, 7.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 6.5 turnovers = PER of 3.1

Per-48 Production against Lance: 24.1 points on 20.2 shots with an eFG% of .532, 8.2 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 3.4 turnovers = PER of 20.6

He has a net-negative PER of 17.5

Thanks, not sure if I'm reading this right, but isn't that -17.5 per his sg numbers? Looks like he's +6 at pg. Just learning some of these stats, so I'm probably wrong.

I'd like to see a breakdown of his defensive stats. Especially the last 10 games or so. From the eye test it looks like he's been much better recently. Overall he's -26 net points on the season per 48 for an average of just over a point a game. Considering he's barely scoring, I'd say that's pretty good.

ECKrueger
02-06-2012, 05:50 PM
I think you're right CJ, looks like he's actually done pretty well statistically at PG.

spazzxb
02-06-2012, 07:28 PM
http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM

Per-48 Production for Lance: 10.3 points on 13.3 shots with an eFG% of .290, 7.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 6.5 turnovers = PER of 3.1

Per-48 Production against Lance: 24.1 points on 20.2 shots with an eFG% of .532, 8.2 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 3.4 turnovers = PER of 20.6

He has a net-negative PER of 17.5

that sites numbers are fishy. According your source Paul george spends a third of his minutes playing shooting forward(sg=42%, sf=21%). PG doesn't play SF, therefore i doubt their accuracy when it comes to who a certain player is guarding.


Are you trying to say Lances defense hasn't been pretty good? I don't even remember many team defense lapses (experience), but I feel his on the ball defense has been pretty impressive.

xBulletproof
02-06-2012, 07:54 PM
that sites numbers are fishy. According your source Paul george spends a third of his minutes playing shooting forward(sg=42%, sf=21%). PG doesn't play SF, therefore i doubt their accuracy when it comes to who a certain player is guarding.


Are you trying to say Lances defense hasn't been pretty good? I don't even remember many team defense lapses (experience), but I feel his on the ball defense has been pretty impressive.

Everyone here swore Lance was playing PG here until Vogel said something about it. 82 games was right about that. Ill trust them before people here.

As for CJ Jones, if you look at the PG stats he's barely played there. His minutes are smalls is, but the sample size at PG is minuscule.

spazzxb
02-06-2012, 08:17 PM
Everyone here swore Lance was playing PG here until Vogel said something about it. 82 games was right about that. Ill trust them before people here.

As for CJ Jones, if you look at the PG stats he's barely played there. His minutes are smalls is, but the sample size at PG is minuscule.

The particular example with PG was the last time I looked at this site and its obviously inaccurate. I didn't search up an example to discredit that site. I am sure this type of data is difficult to collect.

So what is your problem with Lance on defense? Until GH was injured, he and Lance shared the traditional PG duties. I really don't care how much he played one position or another and to be honest (even if there accurate) I don't see much value in these stats( especially considering the limited minutes and other variables that are ignored). This isn't a one on one game and not scoring says nothing about defense.

CJ Jones
02-06-2012, 08:50 PM
Everyone here swore Lance was playing PG here until Vogel said something about it. 82 games was right about that. Ill trust them before people here.

As for CJ Jones, if you look at the PG stats he's barely played there. His minutes are smalls is, but the sample size at PG is minuscule.

Ah, I see now. Thanks, I'll figure this stuff out eventually.

I gotta agree with spazzxb and call :bs: on these numbers. There's no way Lance has played less than 10% of his minutes at pg. He initiated the offense at least half the time with Hill, and he guarded opposing pg's while Hill chased around sg's off the ball. Also, why would Vogel need to announce Lance was gonna be playing strictly sg, if that was the position he was playing over 90% of the time anyway(according to 82games)? :confused:

Brad8888
02-07-2012, 11:03 AM
Ah, I see now. Thanks, I'll figure this stuff out eventually.

I gotta agree with spazzxb and call :bs: on these numbers. There's no way Lance has played less than 10% of his minutes at pg. He initiated the offense at least half the time with Hill, and he guarded opposing pg's while Hill chased around sg's off the ball. Also, why would Vogel need to announce Lance was gonna be playing strictly sg, if that was the position he was playing over 90% of the time anyway(according to 82games)? :confused:

Well, 82games.com was apparently just stating the obvious. They knew when they logged his minutes that he shouldn't have been playing the point whether he was or not.

Mackey_Rose
02-07-2012, 11:09 AM
Regardless of what position you think he is, (apparently what the coach says isn't good enough for you) in a vast majority of his time on the court, he's been a pretty serious negative from a production standpoint.

Basically he's around a net-negative PER of 15.5 if you average both PG & SG numbers.

Since86
02-07-2012, 11:16 AM
Vogel said that Lance would spend most of his time at the 2, not that he was going to spend all his time at the 2.

His comment doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Sookie
02-07-2012, 01:45 PM
The particular example with PG was the last time I looked at this site and its obviously inaccurate. I didn't search up an example to discredit that site. I am sure this type of data is difficult to collect.

So what is your problem with Lance on defense? Until GH was injured, he and Lance shared the traditional PG duties. I really don't care how much he played one position or another and to be honest (even if there accurate) I don't see much value in these stats( especially considering the limited minutes and other variables that are ignored). This isn't a one on one game and not scoring says nothing about defense.

Lance has got the same problem on defense than Darren has. And the same problem PG has. (Yes, PG has one problem on defense)

He can't cover screen and rolls, period.
And he watches the ball instead of his man.

First one, he may just be too slow to cover well (Just as personally, I think DC is too small and isn't laterally quick) Now, if it's done with West, that's partially to blame, but both DC and Lance struggle with that when the post player is anyone.

Second, is just a youth thing, it can be corrected. It does get him a few steals, but it also gets quite a few wide open shots for his guy.

Sparhawk
02-07-2012, 01:52 PM
Lance has got the same problem on defense than Darren has. And the same problem PG has. (Yes, PG has one problem on defense)

He can't cover screen and rolls, period.
And he watches the ball instead of his man.

First one, he may just be too slow to cover well (Just as personally, I think DC is too small and isn't laterally quick) Now, if it's done with West, that's partially to blame, but both DC and Lance struggle with that when the post player is anyone.

Second, is just a youth thing, it can be corrected. It does get him a few steals, but it also gets quite a few wide open shots for his guy.

Yeah, I hope Vogel is going over tape with our wings and showing them how to more effectively get through screens. I see teams doing this to us a lot cause we continue to struggle at it.

CJ Jones
02-08-2012, 03:21 AM
Regardless of what position you think he is, (apparently what the coach says isn't good enough for you) in a vast majority of his time on the court, he's been a pretty serious negative from a production standpoint.

Basically he's around a net-negative PER of 15.5 if you average both PG & SG numbers.

What did coach say? All I heard was Lance was gonna be used at the SG and AJ would get backup PG minutes. How do you get Lance has played SG all year out of that?

82games has Paul playing over 33% of his minutes at SF, and Dahntay playing 50% of his minute at SG. That's clearly wrong, so they're probably wrong about Lance too. I doubt they even watch the games. It looks like they're staring at a stat sheet and slotting positions by height. We watch the games, so we know Lance initiated the offense at times with Hill, and that he guarded mostly PGs. Your source has him guarding SG over 90% of the time, so that there would throw his PER way off.

spazzxb explained it a couple of posts up, there's too many variable in an NBA game. To collect these stats accurately would be nearly impossible because they don't know team game plans, and apparently aren't even watching the games.

xBulletproof
02-08-2012, 05:07 AM
Lebron, and Kobe initiate the offense far more than Lance and they aren't considered or listed at PG.

Why do you think that's quality reasoning for calling Lance the PG?

CJ Jones
02-08-2012, 05:57 AM
It's not just offense I'm talking about, it's the defense too. I would hope we could all agree that he guarded the oppositions PG at least half the time while Hill was playing.