PDA

View Full Version : Lance Stephenson Making Strides To Help Pacers On The Court



90'sNBARocked
02-10-2012, 01:37 AM
http://www.indycornrows.com/2012/2/8/2784773/lance-stephenson-making-strides-to-help-pacers-on-the-court


One silver lining from George Hill's ankle injury is the way reserve guard Lance Stephenson has steadied his game with more minutes in the rotation. Don't get me wrong, he remains a work in progress, but in the past few games there have been far more positive signs emerging from Stephenson's game that he can actually help the Pacers this year.

Plus, there are flashes of absolute brilliance that forces the mind to wander to visions of Stephenson really helping the Pacers in future years. Last night, Stephenson swooped in to snare a rebound off the rim, immediately pushed the ball up the court (well under control, mind you), hesitated and then burst to the lane to finish with a little tear drop.

"My job is to come in, play hard on both ends of the court and try to make things happen," Stephenson said speaking about his role off the bench. But then he went on to talk about the team and winning, not about himself.

The main issue he has to overcome in the short-term is staring at the action off the ball on both defense and offense. He still tends to get caught peeking which can just take a split second to get beat in the NBA. As my friend, Tim Donahue of 8.9 mentioned, Lance could still use a jump shot or perimeter shot of any kind, which is a fair point. Although, I think he can help this year by improving that off-ball defense and then doing everything else he's doing. Now, add a perimeter shot to that game and we're talking Paul George-type burst on the scene impact.

Larry Bird remains patient with Stephenson and the difference pace in his development compared to PG. While speaking with Conrad Brunner and Joe Staysniak on the Grady and Big Joe Show, Bird mentioned the improvements Stephenson has made on and off the court..

"Lance is going through a maturity process and I couldn't more happier for any of my players than Lance," said Bird. "He's completely changed his attitude, the players absolutely adore him now and can't believe he's made the changes he's made and he's continued to get better."

While Bird is happy with Stephenson's development off the court, the Pacers prez remains impressed with Stephenson when he has the ball in his hands.

"On the court his talent is off the charts to me," Bird said. "He's our best passer, he sees the floor better than anybody, he wants to be great and it's just going to take a little bit more time than Paul (George). Paul is a little more athletically inclined to where he can do things and you just go, "Wow!" Lance is more of a, I'll just beat you up, I'll play physical with you. I'll get you down in the post or I'll get rebounds and I'll push the ball up the floor. It's just going to take him more time but I think he's going to be a good one."

Sounds good to me. There's no doubt he sees things on the court others don't which can be a problem when he zips a pass to a teammate that they don't think can made. Maybe his nickname should change from Born Ready to Sixth Sense. Except he sees dimes, not dead people. Like the pass to Lou Amundson at the 35 second mark of this video.

;)

vnzla81
02-10-2012, 01:43 AM
Nice to hear that Lance is growing up, his defense has been underrated also.

ECKrueger
02-10-2012, 01:53 AM
Above all else, I am just really happy to hear he is a lot more mature. I am just glad it seems like we really turned his life around.

If he puts it together on the court I'll be even happier.

Kemo
02-10-2012, 02:18 AM
Sixth Cents ;)

PGisthefuture
02-10-2012, 02:49 AM
The thing mentioned about him making a flashy pass to Lou Amundson got me thinking... If Lance got some playing time with the starters that could do a lot for his game. Also him letting the players know to watch out for fancy passes would be nice. If Lance develops an outside shot he could be pretty good. The future is so bright for this team...

CJ Jones
02-10-2012, 04:46 AM
Nice to hear that Lance is growing up, his defense has been underrated also.

I'm sure someone will pop in here with some ridiculous stat telling me otherwise, but from what I can see he's really been locking people down recently. Besides his maturity, that's what's impressed me the most about his game this year. Night and day compared to last season.

I notice he's learning from his mistakes too. A few games ago he fell asleep on his man at the end of a quarter and gave up a 3. Last night there was an opportunity for him to make the same mistake, but he stayed with his man and contested the shot. That's always a good sign for a young player.

Sparhawk
02-10-2012, 11:23 AM
I'm sure someone will pop in here with some ridiculous stat telling me otherwise, but from what I can see he's really been locking people down recently. Besides his maturity, that's what's impressed me the most about his game this year. Night and day compared to last season.

I notice he's learning from his mistakes too. A few games ago he fell asleep on his man at the end of a quarter and gave up a 3. Last night there was an opportunity for him to make the same mistake, but he stayed with his man and contested the shot. That's always a good sign for a young player.

I think his man to man D has improved, but he'll still lose his man off the ball by watching the action going on. He still makes some rookie mistakes, but I do think his D has improved. That will help him get more time on the court.

I would love to see Lance with the starters. I've seen us go small, with Hans/West playing PF/C. I would love to see us go super tall with a lineup of Lance, PG, DG, West, Hibbs.

xBulletproof
02-10-2012, 11:44 AM
I'm sure someone will pop in here with some ridiculous stat telling me otherwise

Stats are only ridiculous when you don't want to agree with them. Strange, no? :laugh: You can knock the numbers all you want, but when I look at team impact compared to those numbers what I see is very well represented. Lance, and Hansbrough struggle the most on defense. George Hill plays defense well at PG, but struggles on offense. At SG, Hill plays well on offense, but struggles on defense. There are a lot of examples of those stats being pretty spot on with what I see.

Lance is the epitome of people seeing what they want, not always what's there. Reading this post you'd think we were holding down John Stockton by keeping him on the bench after a couple of flashy passes. Then you realize he has more turnovers than assists. I still keep seeing people blame things on his teammates not being ready for his awesome flashy passes, but don't these guys practice together? You'd think after a year+ of practicing with a guy, they'd be ready for it. Maybe ... just maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, something is wrong with Lance's pass, not everyone else. He seems to be the common denominator here.

Sometimes saying anything realistic about Lance here feels like you're bad mouthing the Pope in the middle of a catholic church.

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 11:52 AM
I'm sure someone will pop in here with some ridiculous stat telling me otherwise, but from what I can see he's really been locking people down recently.

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

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers give up 104.2 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers give up 93.9 points per 100 possessions.

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers score 93.9 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers score 103.6 points per 10 possessions.

Completely independent of what position he's playing, the Pacers are a net 14.6 points per 100 possessions worse with him on the floor.

Ownagedood
02-10-2012, 12:14 PM
http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers give up 104.2 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers give up 93.9 points per 100 possessions.

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers score 93.9 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers score 103.6 points per 10 possessions.

Completely independent of what position he's playing, the Pacers are a net 14.6 points per 100 possessions worse with him on the floor.

Haha, he also just so happens to be on the court when Kobe Jones is our best scorer and defender on the floor.. Hope he gets more time with Granger, PG and Hibbert soon.

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 12:17 PM
Haha, he also just so happens to be on the court when Kobe Jones is our best scorer and defender on the floor.. Hope he gets more time with Granger, PG and Hibbert soon.

Why would you hope for that? Why are we so worried about developing one player in a season when we are one of the best teams in the conference?

Eddie Gill
02-10-2012, 12:21 PM
Lance is the epitome of people seeing what they want, not always what's there. Reading this post you'd think we were holding down John Stockton by keeping him on the bench after a couple of flashy passes. Then you realize he has more turnovers than assists.

Lance actually has one more assist than turnovers (25 assists, 24 TOs) :dance:

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 12:21 PM
He hasn't embarrassed off the court, so that's good. :shrug:

Kid Minneapolis
02-10-2012, 12:24 PM
Lance is a project, that's all this article is saying. He's a project that's making progress. If Bird sees something, then I trust him more than I trust some knuckleheads on a messageboard. If Bird is happy with his progress, then that's saying something. He's not achieved what Bird sees in him yet, but that doesn't mean he can't. We're not in a hurry, so let's just sit back and see what happens. He's a 2nd-rounder, pretty amazing he's still around.

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 12:24 PM
Lance actually has one more assist than turnovers (25 assists, 24 TOs) :dance:

22 assists, and 23 turnovers.

billbradley
02-10-2012, 12:24 PM
Why would you hope for that? Why are we so worried about developing one player in a season when we are one of the best teams in the conference?

I thought he meant he hoped Lance is good enough to be a starter soon. Shouldn't we all want that?

Day-V
02-10-2012, 12:25 PM
Why would you hope for that? Why are we so worried about developing one player in a season when we are one of the best teams in the conference?

For as much as you **** on DC, I would've thought you'd be salivating at the thought of developing a guy like Lance to eventually become the starting PG.

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 12:28 PM
For as much as you **** on DC, I would've thought you'd be salivating at the thought of developing a guy like Lance to eventually become the starting PG.

I don't see Lance as a PG. At all.

Ownagedood
02-10-2012, 12:30 PM
Why would you hope for that? Why are we so worried about developing one player in a season when we are one of the best teams in the conference?

So he can have some playing time alongside the better players on our team.. he's got a load of potential so I don't see why it would hurt the lineup if he played a few more mins with starters who can score around him and maybe put DC with the reserve group a couple more mins, where he can do his scoring.. I don't want lance starting over DC at all, I just want them to expand in their roles a little.. DC is a scoring PG, why not have him in with the lineup that doesn't have good scorers in it? Lance is a passer, why not put him in with the scorers? Unless they prove they can't get it done in those roles I think they should at least give it a shot.

Kid Minneapolis
02-10-2012, 12:30 PM
I could see Lance as a PG. He's got some work to do though.

Gamble1
02-10-2012, 12:35 PM
I could see Lance as a PG. He's got some work to do though.
It really doesn't matter to me because Lance is talented enough to develop into a guy that can have an impact on the game. Much like Hill he will be able to hold down the point and make plays for himself and others so no he won't be a starter but he won't be terrible at it either.

The best thing of all is that Lance is signed for 2 more years and we will have the option to sign him to a "reasonable extension" when he has developed more. That makes me feel that we got a steal in the second round.

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 12:35 PM
I could see Lance as a PG. He's got some work to do though.

I could see Lance as a PG in the same way that I see George Hill as a point guard, which is to say he is not a point guard.

However, the one thing Hill has that Lance does not, is the fact that I would probably not beat George Hill in a game of horse just by shooting 3s.

Kid Minneapolis
02-10-2012, 12:47 PM
Stephenson has way more PG skills than GHill. I can see how you might see he's not quite an NBA PG at the moment, but I don't see how you can say he doesn't have the capability to be one. His vision, passing, ball-handling are all there, his ability to bring the ball up the court.... he just needs to get better at setting up the half-court offense and looking to pass instead of score, and he's an NBA PG.

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 12:48 PM
Lance is very good at getting the ball and accelerating up the court with it. That is a lot different than setting up an offense though.

Kid Minneapolis
02-10-2012, 12:50 PM
That's why I said he needs to improve it, lol.... but I think he's capable of learning to do that.

Kid Minneapolis
02-10-2012, 12:52 PM
Let's be honest here, he's only 21 years old... and he's been a SG most of his life, so he's having to learn the PG thing. Most players don't have to learn a new position when they hit the NBA. He's showing some promise.

imawhat
02-10-2012, 12:54 PM
Please, not the debate.

I'm sure Lance's net numbers are some of the lowest on the team. He's not really contributing anything offensively at this point and he's also getting very few minutes. I haven't looked at the stats but my guess is probably 6 or so per game.

He's been playing good ball defense since he season began so I haven't really seen any strides made. However, I think that's a very tough task for a player getting very few minutes on a team that probably hasn't practiced much.

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 12:54 PM
Let's be honest here, he's only 21 years old... and he's been a SG most of his life, so he's having to learn the PG thing. Most players don't have to learn a new position when they hit the NBA. He's showing some promise.

I want to focus on the bolded part for two reasons.

1.) Why are we trying to force him to learn the PG position if he's been a shooting guard (and a mostly successful one) for most of his career?

2.) What makes anyone think we are still trying to turn him into a point guard? I thought Vogel's comments plus AJ Price getting minutes while Hill is out would have put that to rest.

Lance's net offense has been a net negative IMO. His defense, however, is a case where stats lie. I think he has been very good defensively and unfortunately has been spending a lot of time on defense with another player on the team who happens to be the worst defender we have, both individually and on a team basis.

Since86
02-10-2012, 01:01 PM
2.) What makes anyone think we are still trying to turn him into a point guard? I thought Vogel's comments plus AJ Price getting minutes while Hill is out would have put that to rest.


Because he didn't say that Lance would only play at the 2. He said Lance would get most of his minutes there, not all of them.

(EDIT: News: Stephenson will serve primarily as a shooting guard while George Hill is out with an ankle injury, the Indianapolis Star reports.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/player/-/news/821226?q )

He also said that Lance would be used a backup PG.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120108/SPORTS04/201080351/Lance-Stephenson-remain-Pacers-No-2-point-guard

Yes, I understand that this was before Hill getting hurt, but you're argument before then was GH was the PG and Lance was the SG then too.

Sookie
02-10-2012, 01:06 PM
Lance is very good at getting the ball and accelerating up the court with it. That is a lot different than setting up an offense though.

I actually think he, like McRoberts was, is our best player at throwing the outlet pass.

He's a completely different player on the break than he is in a half court offense.

I don't know why people aren't remembering the mess that was Lance as a PG in the halfcourt. His improve play came at exactly the same time as Vogel moving him to SG.

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 01:08 PM
Because he didn't say that Lance would only play at the 2. He said Lance would get most of his minutes there, not all of them.

(EDIT: News: Stephenson will serve primarily as a shooting guard while George Hill is out with an ankle injury, the Indianapolis Star reports.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/player/-/news/821226?q )

He also said that Lance would be used a backup PG.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120108/SPORTS04/201080351/Lance-Stephenson-remain-Pacers-No-2-point-guard

Yes, I understand that this was before Hill getting hurt, but you're argument before then was GH was the PG and Lance was the SG then too.

I think I've seen Lance play PG once, maybe twice, for a play or two since Vogel's comments, JMO.

90'sNBARocked
02-10-2012, 02:41 PM
I dont give a flying **** what you call Lance : SG/PG.

IT DOESNT FREAKIN MATTER!!!

Lance is best with the ball in his hands. Peroid. He does not do well standing in a corner waiting to get a pss only if the player with the ball is stuck or the shot clock is winding down. He is best with the ball in his hands where he can beat his player off the dribble, drive to the basket and dish. Like him or not, he makes plays that I dont believe anyone else on the team can. He can post up guards , and is deft at finding cutters. He is young and will have flashes of brillanced and also times where you smack you head. He is 20 years old with very little in game experience. His strengths though you cant teach

I am not naming names but I remember I wass one of , if not the biggest Lance supporter when allegations first arrived. I wish I could pull some of the comments about him at that time. Everything from "Artest 2.0", to woman beater, to he should be in the D league" etc etc. You dont just magically become rated in the top 5 highschool players in the country. He has skills he has had most of his life. He does need to learn how to utilize those skills in a professional NBA game and he is making progress. Not a knock on DC but I bet if Lance was given DC's minutes as the starting PG, he would eventually have a better assist to turnover ratio . Not saying he is better at this point than DC, just that I feel there are SOME things Lance is better at and would be better if given the chance

The book of Lance Stephenson still has many chapters to be written, and who knows how it will end. Those who act like he has no talent or potential I dont see how they come to that conclusion, or the conclusion that Lance can't run an offense

Most of all though , he has been affiliated with the Pacers almost 2 years, and after the intial hiccup, which was droped, not a peep negative has been heard, and he spent his entire off season here in Nap, bustin his hump.

So for all those that said all the discuraging and nasty things about him (which you had the right to do so)

In the words of one of the pioneer rappers Kool Mo Dee

"HOW YA LIKE ME NOW"!

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 02:44 PM
I am not naming names but I remember I wass one of , if not the biggest Lance supporter when allegations first arrived. I wish I could pull some of the comments about him at that time. Everything from "Artest 2.0", to woman beater, to he should be in the D league" etc etc. You dont just magically become rated in the top 5 highschool players in the country. He has skills he has had most of his life.

How are those things said about him, and those skills he's had, at all related?

Since86
02-10-2012, 02:45 PM
Well Vogel's comments clearly indicate that the Pacers view him as both.

CableKC
02-10-2012, 02:57 PM
Although every game counts...after Bird's comments about Lance's passing and court vision skills coupled with AJ's "on and off" again games ( where's he's doing a great impression of a "pass first PG" and a really bad impression as a "J'OB PG that would take bad shots" )....I really want to see how Lance does with the ball in his hands running the offense for extended periods of time over the course of a few games.

I want to see if he can actually "sink or swim" as the guy trying to create for others or passing the ball. If anything...over the course of a few games...this would put this whole Lance is better "on or off" the ball as the PG or SG to rest.

RWB
02-10-2012, 03:13 PM
I really want to see how Lance does with the ball in his hands running the offense for extended periods of time over the course of a few games.

I want to see if he can actually "sink or swim" as the guy trying to create for others or passing the ball. If anything...over the course of a few games...this would put this whole Lance is better "on or off" the ball as the PG or SG to rest.

Have to disagree. If the Pacers were losing then so be it, but at this time experimentation needs to wait with the shortened season.

CableKC
02-10-2012, 03:27 PM
Have to disagree. If the Pacers were losing then so be it, but at this time experimentation needs to wait with the shortened season.
I totally agree....but honestly......I'd take the risk of seeing what Lance can do with the ball in his hands.

Believe me....I was totally in the "Let AJ run the point" camp....but over the last couple of games, I don't know if the "Good AJ" is going to show up or the "Bad AJ" is going to show up to run the point.

I'm now in the "I am still skeptical as to whether Lance can do it...but AJ has been so 'hit or miss' when it comes to running the point as of late.....if Bird thinks that Lance has the skillset to do it, then prove to me that he can be a good creator and passer" camp.

If Bird truly does believe that he has really good passing skills and court vision....as long as the 2nd unit is ready on the offensive end to receive some crazy pass from him....I'm just at the point where I'd just like to see what Lance can do.

imawhat
02-10-2012, 03:28 PM
Have to disagree. If the Pacers were losing then so be it, but at this time experimentation needs to wait with the shortened season.

I'd say the opposite. Since we're winning, there's a little more room for experimentation. Lance is very unlikely to get minutes during the playoffs, so let's see if he sharpen some of his weaknesses.

I don't agree with the way he's being used or how he's being fed minutes, but now's the time to do it.

kielbeze
02-10-2012, 03:30 PM
http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers give up 104.2 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers give up 93.9 points per 100 possessions.

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers score 93.9 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers score 103.6 points per 10 possessions.

Completely independent of what position he's playing, the Pacers are a net 14.6 points per 100 possessions worse with him on the floor.

Holy cow you mean our second unit scores less than our starters?
Thanks Mr. O you are a lifesaver!

90'sNBARocked
02-10-2012, 03:30 PM
If it was me, I would make a couple adjustments and see how it works

Starters :
DC
Dhanty Jones
Danny Granger
David West
Roy Hibbert

Bench

Lance
G Hill
Paul George
Tyler
Lou/Foster

Reason being I think PG would be better suited as the primary scorer on the second unit. He could also take advantage of the other teams bench player. I like DJ in the starting unit because he would play good defense and being the first unit has more scorers on the floor and would feel less inclined to take wild shots/drives

Lance having the ball in his hands will make him a playmaker, which would be better than having him stand around. If Lance faulters, then bring in AJ

90'sNBARocked
02-10-2012, 03:32 PM
How are those things said about him, and those skills he's had, at all related?

My point was Lance was obliterated by people here before who wanted him run out of town and thought it was anohter Tinsely/Artest situation

Glad that he , so far, has proven those individuals wrong

on his skills, several also said he is not an NBA player, should be in the d league, etc. My point, Lance does have skills and is an NBA player

so yeah , a little vindication (as one of Lance's biggest supporters) feels good

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 03:35 PM
Holy cow you mean our second unit scores less than our starters?
Thanks Mr. O you are a lifesaver!

http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND2.HTM

When AJ Price is on the court, the Pacers give up 82.2 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers give up 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

When AJ is on the court, the Pacers score 90.0 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers score 103.1 points per 10 possessions.

Completely independent of what position he's playing, the Pacers are a net 6.1 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor.

Eddie Gill
02-10-2012, 03:39 PM
22 assists, and 23 turnovers.


I suppose that is technically correct. I included preseason games in my count.

Pacergeek
02-10-2012, 03:51 PM
I am a big fan of Born Ready, but he does seem to be a turnover machine. He needs to figure how to limit turnovers

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 04:03 PM
I can't think of a single maneuver (short of benching Roy Hibbert in favor of Lou) that would have a more detrimental effect on this team than moving Paul George to the bench.

Sookie
02-10-2012, 04:07 PM
I can't think of a single maneuver (short of benching Roy Hibbert in favor of Lou) that would have a more detrimental effect on this team than moving Paul George to the bench.

Yup, go ahead and give him more minutes with the bench (more minutes in general)

But PG's going to be, imo, an all star sooner rather than later, and the starting unit needs his offense and defense.

xIndyFan
02-10-2012, 04:08 PM
. . . Lance is the epitome of people seeing what they want, not always what's there. . .

this post should go at the top of every thread about lance. :laugh::cool:

truth is those who see nothing, don't want to see anything.

and those who see a starter, see the potential, not the actual play.


reality seems to be a guy with lots of potential, a chance to be good, but still learning how to play. learning how to play physically, learning to play mentally and most important learning to play emotionally. bird and vogel seem to be doing the right thing. give lance a chance to play well each night. when he plays well, he gets extra minutes. if he doesn't play well, then short minutes.

we should all be hoping lance gets it though. if you find yourself rooting against lance, you might want to recheck your fanhood. good play from lance is good play for the pacers. if lance can indeed become a top PG, then great play for the pacers. now who wouldn't want that.

PaceBalls
02-10-2012, 04:09 PM
Yup, go ahead and give him more minutes with the bench (more minutes in general)

But PG's going to be, imo, an all star sooner rather than later, and the starting unit needs his offense and defense.

Sookie,
This is totally OT. But I just spent all last night watching those youtube vids of that Honey Badger guy :laugh:

I love the avatar!

vnzla81
02-10-2012, 04:11 PM
I think that for us to know for sure if Lance is a point guard or an small guard we would have to wait for him to open a charity or something like that, then depending of the name they put on it we decide whatever position he plays, for example if the charity is name "to the point" that means he is a "point guard" and if the charity is call "small steps" that would mean that he is an "small guard" :zip:

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 04:14 PM
Sookie,
This is totally OT. But I just spent all last night watching those youtube vids of that Honey Badger guy :laugh:

I love the avatar!

You best keep Tyrann Mathieu's name out yo' mouth.

Sookie
02-10-2012, 04:17 PM
Sookie,
This is totally OT. But I just spent all last night watching those youtube vids of that Honey Badger guy :laugh:

I love the avatar!

oh, didn't even look to see if he had more videos than the one. Yay, more ways to procrastinate. :laugh:

mattie
02-10-2012, 04:20 PM
http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND2.HTM That's only 59 minutes. It shows in 59 minutes on the court, the offense regressed with AJ on the court, while the defense improved. It's highly unlikely AJ has that much effect on the defense, so because of such a small sample size it's not telling giving us any concrete information.


The info on Lance: http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM is probably a little more reliable. That's with 127 minutes on the court. It also vibes with his personal offense statistics as well.

90'sNBARocked
02-10-2012, 05:00 PM
The reason I said D Jones should start was not a knock on PG, I just think if we start DJ, and bring PG off the bench, it helps both in my opinion. PG will be more agressive as the primary scorer on the floor with the second unit (Granger/Roy to me are primary options in the first unit) and will be generally facing players not as good as the starters

PG could still get "starters minutes" without starting. Kind of like how in Denver, DJ would start , play about the first 4-6 minutes, and then they would bring JR Smith off the bench who would come in firing

Trader Joe
02-10-2012, 05:01 PM
JR Smith is a completely different player than Paul though.

McKeyFan
02-10-2012, 05:09 PM
The reason I said D Jones should start was not a knock on PG, I just think if we start DJ, and bring PG off the bench, it helps both in my opinion. PG will be more agressive as the primary scorer on the floor with the second unit (Granger/Roy to me are primary options in the first unit) and will be generally facing players not as good as the starters

PG could still get "starters minutes" without starting. Kind of like how in Denver, DJ would start , play about the first 4-6 minutes, and then they would bring JR Smith off the bench who would come in firing
As always, the most important issue is who finishes. Paul should finish for sure while George Hill is out.

When Hill gets back, I'd prefer Hill and Paul George finish.

Since86
02-10-2012, 05:16 PM
JR Smith is a completely different player than Paul though.

And it should stay that way.

90'sNBARocked
02-10-2012, 05:20 PM
JR Smith is a completely different player than Paul though.

True, and fair point. I still think it would work but who knows

CJ Jones
02-10-2012, 07:16 PM
Stats are only ridiculous when you don't want to agree with them. Strange, no? :laugh:


I don't have a problem with stats, I'm just new to advanced stats, and when I look at 82games I see obvious inconsistencies. The other day when I noticed them (thanks to spazzxb) neither you nor Mackey Rose took the opportunity to set me straight by explaining why their numbers were off. So until someone proves me wrong about 82games or can come up with a better source, I'm gonna stick with my own opinions and the opinions of those who actually watch the games.


I don't see Lance as a PG. At all.

I'm sure this has been discussed already, but since I'm a newb can you expand on why you don't see Lance as a PG. At all.


I'm sure someone will pop in here with some ridiculous stat telling me otherwise...


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

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers give up 104.2 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers give up 93.9 points per 100 possessions.

When Lance is on the court, the Pacers score 93.9 points per 100 possessions. When he's on the bench, the Pacers score 103.6 points per 10 possessions.

Completely independent of what position he's playing, the Pacers are a net 14.6 points per 100 possessions worse with him on the floor.


http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND2.HTM That's only 59 minutes. It shows in 59 minutes on the court, the offense regressed with AJ on the court, while the defense improved. It's highly unlikely AJ has that much effect on the defense, so because of such a small sample size it's not telling giving us any concrete information.


The info on Lance: http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND4.HTM is probably a little more reliable. That's with 127 minutes on the court. It also vibes with his personal offense statistics as well.

... thanks fellas :bs:

spazzxb
02-10-2012, 08:01 PM
I think I've seen Lance play PG once, maybe twice, for a play or two since Vogel's comments, JMO.

http://g.images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/14415958.jpg

xBulletproof
02-10-2012, 08:35 PM
I don't have a problem with stats, I'm just new to advanced stats, and when I look at 82games I see obvious inconsistencies. The other day when I noticed them (thanks to spazzxb) neither you nor Mackey Rose took the opportunity to set me straight by explaining why their numbers were off. So until someone proves me wrong about 82games or can come up with a better source, I'm gonna stick with my own opinions and the opinions of those who actually watch the games.

Maybe I can't explain why the numbers are "off" because I don't think they are. I believe you and spazz acted like they were just comparing box scores to get their numbers. In the starting lineup Paul George is listed as a SG, and in the box score he's listed in the spot that the starting SG shows up. So if they don't watch the the games, and only see the box score, then how do they come about the idea that he played SF? It's a good question but nothing within it suggests they aren't watching the games. Otherwise PG would be at SG all day.

I honestly believe they use the combinations of players on the floor and slot their positions based on who is on the floor. A lot of Paul Georges listed time at the SF involves two of these three players on the floor at the same time. Collison-Stephenson-Hill. So if any combination those players are on the floor with George, are you going to tell me that Paul George isn't the SF? I think when Dahntay and George are on the floor, PG is generally the SF as well.

Nothing about their numbers are crazy. They certainly are doing more than just comparing box scores.

spazzxb
02-10-2012, 08:56 PM
A lot of Paul Georges listed time at the SF involves two of these three players on the floor at the same time. Collison-Stephenson-Hill.

Define a lot? It looks like 18 minutes to me. We played a super small ball lineup during desperation time in Detroit and he may have played when Danny was sick.

I would agree that it appears they look at who is on the floor and guess about match-ups. This strengthens my point that the data in regards to who was a certain players responsibility on defense in unreliable.

Lance also has mostly played along side backups. Recently I am glad to see Vogal stagger George and Granger a little bit, however why wouldn't you expect a lineup with DJ and Amundsun to perform at a lower lever than one with Granger/George and Hibbert. There isn't much value in the way you and Mackey are using these numbers.

xBulletproof
02-10-2012, 09:11 PM
18 is a lot when the total of all the minutes they have him listed at SF just over 100. I didn't add it up, but it's not going to be much over 100.

If you check the total minutes they're never up to date. Right now they have Paul listed for 550 minutes and after tonight he will be pushing 800. They obviously take a lot of time to gather these stats. You're just making assumptions to believe they are just lining up players and comparing numbers. If they were doing that, why couldn't their site be up to date? That certainly wouldn't take very long to do.

Regardless, I emailed them and asked them bluntly if Paul George is guarding Derrick Rose, and during that time Rose shoots 0-2, while Rip Hamilton goes 2-2, which one of those stats will be attributed to Paul George. They are a 9-5, and M-F business so I probably won't get a reply for days.

CJ Jones
02-10-2012, 10:48 PM
I honestly believe they use the combinations of players on the floor and slot their positions based on who is on the floor. A lot of Paul Georges listed time at the SF involves two of these three players on the floor at the same time. Collison-Stephenson-Hill. So if any combination those players are on the floor with George, are you going to tell me that Paul George isn't the SF?


I explained this in the other post, but what it looks like to me is that according to 82games when Paul checks back in and plays with Dahntay he's being given the SF minutes and Dahntay's getting the SG minutes. If that's the case, it's safe to assume that when Lance was checking in for Collison he was being given the SG minutes while Hill got the PG minutes. If that's the case their PER gos right out the window.

Now, if you honestly believe Dahntay plays SG when playing with Paul, I don't know what to tell you. Paul always guards the SGs, just like Lance more often than not guarded the PG while playing with Hill. I can't figure out why everyone just disregards defense.

Anyways... thanks for e-mailing them. I'm interested to find out what they have to say.

Edit: btw the Collison-Hill-Stephenson combo you speak of has spent 20 out of 773 minutes with Paul on the court, while 82 games has Paul spending over a third of his minutes at the SF ;)

xBulletproof
02-10-2012, 10:57 PM
Edit: btw the Collison-Hill-Stephenson combo you speak of has spent 20 out of 773 minutes with Paul on the court, while 82 games has Paul spending over a third of his minutes at the SF ;)

On 82games.com Paul hasn't played 773 minutes. You seem to think they're very simplistic in their stat gathering, but I wouldn't expect them to be behind if that were the case. 82games is NEVER up to date during the season. They're always behind. Rather odd for a group of people just comparing box scores. ;)

CJ Jones
02-11-2012, 01:40 AM
On 82games.com Paul hasn't played 773 minutes. You seem to think they're very simplistic in their stat gathering, but I wouldn't expect them to be behind if that were the case. 82games is NEVER up to date during the season. They're always behind. Rather odd for a group of people just comparing box scores. ;)

My mistake, how about 18 out of 186 minutes for a grand total of a little over 9% of time Paul spent at SF according to 82games. What about the rest of the 90%?

Why'd you disregard the rest of my post? You can't even see it as a possibility? :confused:

I've also been wondering, are there any other sites that keep advanced stats that I can look at and compare their numbers to?

xBulletproof
02-11-2012, 01:59 AM
I ignored the other comments because it sounded like you think because Stephenson subbed in for Collison, that he must be the point guard because Collison was. Which sounds pretty silly.

Just like today, Paul was guarding Rudy Gay. So I ignored the PG "always" guards the SG point. He doesn't "always" guard the SG at all. Dahntay was guarding Monta during the Golden State game as well. You're just remembering things the way you want them to be. Today is a fine example of Paul not always gaurding the SG.

Either way, you can check out Hoopdata. However their stats are up to date and they don't provide defensive stats. So there will be obvious differences.

CJ Jones
02-11-2012, 03:54 AM
I ignored the other comments because it sounded like you think because Stephenson subbed in for Collison, that he must be the point guard because Collison was. Which sounds pretty silly.

Just like today, Paul was guarding Rudy Gay. So I ignored the PG "always" guards the SG point. He doesn't "always" guard the SG at all. Dahntay was guarding Monta during the Golden State game as well. You're just remembering things the way you want them to be. Today is a fine example of Paul not always gaurding the SG.

Either way, you can check out Hoopdata. However their stats are up to date and they don't provide defensive stats. So there will be obvious differences.

That's not what I said at all. I said they're miscalculating Lance's defensive numbers if they got him guarding SGs all the time. Whether Paul has always or almost always guarded SGs doesn't really matter because we're talking about Lance anyways.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure Lance guarded PGs while Hill chased SGs off the ball the majority of the time they spent on the floor together. According to the source, Lance has guarded the SG over 90% of his time this year. DO you think that's accurate? Even if you factor in Hill's missed time I don't think it will add up. I definitely could be wrong though.

I guess this argument is pointless anyway. I can't imagine GMs and coaches using these stats to judge their players. They're the only ones with the game plan, so if they use a PER it's a much more accurate one.

Appreciate the site. I'm about to check it out...

Edit: I think I've figured out how far their book keeping's up to. They have Lance at 42 shots, so I looked at the game logs and found that would take them through 18 games. If my math isn't fuzzy (and it very well could be) that makes 864 available minutes at PG this season, with Lance having only played around 10 of those minutes. If I'm misinterpreting the numbers or if my math is wrong, please someone let me know. I'm just trying to make sense of all this.:confused: