PDA

View Full Version : Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....



Peck
11-28-2012, 03:00 AM
Only time for some quick bullet points tonight guys, sorry.


• Frank is trying to kill me by playing that God awful backup unit together against other teams who still have some starters in the game. He has got to start mixing them as the unit is just not good together.
• Our backup wings are killing us right now. Young nor Green did anything of merit in this game and both made bonehead plays costing us ground.
• Lance didn’t really help a lot tonight either however he had a pair of big rebounds in the second half.
• George Hill is the second most clutch player on our team (Danny is first) and what I love about him is he does not shy away from the big moment at all.
• To quote Seth here, David West is a B A M F! Big game from him including directing the very last play in which Hill scored. I thought I might have to gouge out my eyes with all of the bad shooting that occurred while he was on the bench. Thank God he played and hit shots.
• Sadly Roy was very affective in limited (foul ridden min.) thanks to Dwight “flopper” Howard.
• I used to like Howard now I almost can’t stand to see him play.
• I can only hope D’Antoni does for L.A. what he did for N.Y. and so far from what I’ve seen he’s well on his way. Some day he & O’Brien will be battling for the Euro championships somewhere in a “king of the Baltic” game or something.
• Ian Mahinmi actually looked a lot like the Ian from pre-season and Lord knows tonight we needed it and unlike our starting small forward he actually hit the majority of his free throws.
• Paul George did a very good job on the boards and did as well as you can do vs. Bryant.
• The Black Mamba is the Black Mamba you’re not going to do anything about that. Dude just has ice water in his veins.
• Danny’s knee looked great while he was doing the post game chicken dance. Also I know I shouldn’t get my hopes up but he’s now traveling with the team and doing some practice and shooting, God please let him return sooner rather than later.
• Did I mention that Green & Young were atrocious?
• We only shot 63% from the free throw line and missed several in the 4th, fortunately not as many as the Lakers missed, but we have got to work on that.
• Tyler was just to small tonight, he had no chance out there at all. He even had one of his rock solid rebounds tipped away by Bryant.
• I know that it is conventional wisdom that Joey Crawford is a great ref. I’m sorry I just disagree. That blocking foul that we all love so much was actually the wrong call and his gross over exaggeration of the call just goes further to prove that he is all about “look at me” when he refs. a game. Sure he is not afraid to call fouls on stars or hit the home team but often times he’s just as wrong as the rest of them are and frankly the fact that everybody in the free world knows him tells me he doesn’t do his job very well.

Off for a couple of days with some real practice time. Let’s try and get one of these two weekend games (or better yet get both) and then take our chance with the Bulls.

Pingu
11-28-2012, 03:07 AM
• I know that it is conventional wisdom that Joey Crawford is a great ref. I’m sorry I just disagree. That blocking foul that we all love so much was actually the wrong call and his gross over exaggeration of the call just goes further to prove that he is all about “look at me” when he refs. a game. Sure he is not afraid to call fouls on stars or hit the home team but often times he’s just as wrong as the rest of them are and frankly the fact that everybody in the free world knows him tells me he doesn’t do his job very well.


AMEN

notque
11-28-2012, 03:31 AM
• Lance didn’t really help a lot tonight either however he had a pair of big rebounds in the second half.


Totally disagree. His ability to actually get around someone mattered.



• Did I mention that Green & Young were atrocious?

Agreed, I wouldn't mind cutting Young tomorrow and signing someone else.



• Tyler was just to small tonight, he had no chance out there at all. He even had one of his rock solid rebounds tipped away by Bryant.

He also made a very very tough rebound in traffic. I think you're choosing where to focus here, Tyler was not the problem.


• I know that it is conventional wisdom that Joey Crawford is a great ref. I’m sorry I just disagree. That blocking foul that we all love so much was actually the wrong call and his gross over exaggeration of the call just goes further to prove that he is all about “look at me” when he refs. a game. Sure he is not afraid to call fouls on stars or hit the home team but often times he’s just as wrong as the rest of them are and frankly the fact that everybody in the free world knows him tells me he doesn’t do his job very well.

Every ref gets calls wrong. At least he calls it without a tremendous level of bias, which is all you can ask for. Have you ever spoken to a ref? They know they get a ton of calls wrong, it's an impossible job.


Off for a couple of days with some real practice time. Let’s try and get one of these two weekend games (or better yet get both) and then take our chance with the Bulls.

What we need isn't practice, but to sign someone who can score the basketball for the 2nd unit.

Eleazar
11-28-2012, 03:40 AM
At least he calls it without a tremendous level of bias



I completely disagree with this. I don't think I have walked away from a Crawford reffed game that I was not completely disgusted by the reffing, especially when that game involves big names on the other team.



By the way, who is the Black Mamba?

MrSparko
11-28-2012, 03:43 AM
I completely disagree with this. I don't think I have walked away from a Crawford reffed game that I was not completely disgusted by the reffing, especially when that game involves big names on the other team.



By the way, who is the Black Mamba?

Kobe.

Heisenberg
11-28-2012, 03:46 AM
Doesn't matter that Ian played pretty well. Plenty will keep building the narrative that he sucks.

CableKC
11-28-2012, 04:05 AM
I think that Peck forgot to mention how atrocious Green and Young were on the offensive end.

CableKC
11-28-2012, 04:14 AM
Doesn't matter that Ian played pretty well. Plenty will keep building the narrative that he sucks.
I have to point out that although Mahinmi played well.....there were a few plays on the offensive end where he tried to do more than he was capable of doing....like driving to the hoop then losing the ball on the dribble.

I agree that Mahinmi putting up 8 to 10 points is great....but I don't get the sense that his offensive game should consist of anything more than hitting a wide open Mid-range jumpshot, scoring on some put backs ( a la Udonis Haslem ) and getting to the FT line.

Can someone who has paid attention to his game in Dallas tell me if he has it in him to display more of an offensive game than what I have mentioned above?

I'm not disagreeing with you that he won't be an impact Player in the future....I'm just trying to determine if he will really have that much more of an impact on the offensive end than Foster did when he was on the Team.

notque
11-28-2012, 04:22 AM
Cut Young, sign Raja Bell?

Heisenberg
11-28-2012, 04:26 AM
I have to point out that although Mahinmi played well.....there were a few plays on the offensive end where he tried to do more than he was capable of doing....like driving to the hoop then losing the ball on the dribble.

I agree that Mahinmi putting up 8 to 10 points is great....but I don't get the sense that his offensive game should consist of anything more than hitting a wide open Mid-range jumpshot, scoring on some put backs ( a la Udonis Haslem ) and getting to the FT line.

Can someone who has paid attention to his game in Dallas tell me if he has it in him to display more of an offensive game than what I have mentioned above?

I'm not disagreeing with you that he won't be an impact Player in the future....I'm just trying to determine if he will really have that much more of an impact on the offensive end than Foster did when he was on the Team.

No one said he'll ever be an "impact player." Certainly not me. Just that he's far from a walking $4 million mistake like so many people are quick to accuse him of.

aamcguy
11-28-2012, 04:38 AM
I have to point out that although Mahinmi played well.....there were a few plays on the offensive end where he tried to do more than he was capable of doing....like driving to the hoop then losing the ball on the dribble.

I agree that Mahinmi putting up 8 to 10 points is great....but I don't get the sense that his offensive game should consist of anything more than hitting a wide open Mid-range jumpshot, scoring on some put backs ( a la Udonis Haslem ) and getting to the FT line.

Can someone who has paid attention to his game in Dallas tell me if he has it in him to display more of an offensive game than what I have mentioned above?

I'm not disagreeing with you that he won't be an impact Player in the future....I'm just trying to determine if he will really have that much more of an impact on the offensive end than Foster did when he was on the Team.

With Foster, you're looking at a king of 2nd chance and hustle points. Basically, Foster didn't try to put the ball in the basket unless it was a shot your grandmother would consider shooting. He relied on offensive rebounds and other players getting him the ball for easy drives.

The fact that Mahinmi can catch the ball above the free throw line and has the option of either shooting or driving means he is more polished offensively than Foster ever was. Mahinmi isn't as good off the offensive glass and his hands aren't as reliable. However, Mahinmi also loves to catch those dumpoffs leading to a quick dunk. So their point production may be similar in the end.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnboXiq33os

idioteque
11-28-2012, 07:57 AM
Without looking it up online, I would guess the Pacers have a pretty good recent record against the Lakers at Staples Center. It seems we win there almost every time we play them, very odd.

Sollozzo
11-28-2012, 08:03 AM
Without looking it up online, I would guess the Pacers have a pretty good recent record against the Lakers at Staples Center. It seems we win there almost every time we play them, very odd.

I think we lost every time we played there from 99-00 (the year it opened) to 09-10. Our win two years ago was the first time we ever beat them at Staples, IIRC. Now we're on a nice three game streak there.

CoolHand
11-28-2012, 08:10 AM
Without looking it up online, I would guess the Pacers have a pretty good recent record against the Lakers at Staples Center. It seems we win there almost every time we play them, very odd.

Someone tweeted that we've won three in a row there..

Unclebuck
11-28-2012, 09:31 AM
• I know that it is conventional wisdom that Joey Crawford is a great ref. I’m sorry I just disagree. That blocking foul that we all love so much was actually the wrong call and his gross over exaggeration of the call just goes further to prove that he is all about “look at me” when he refs. a game. Sure he is not afraid to call fouls on stars or hit the home team but often times he’s just as wrong as the rest of them are and frankly the fact that everybody in the free world knows him tells me he doesn’t do his job very well.



As I have watched that play over and over again. I think the perfect call would have been no call at all. No block, no charge. Contact was minimal and after the ball was shot. But I suppose that is unrealistic to expect the refs to use a little common sense vs by the letter of the law.

Beyond that a charge was probably the better call in todays NBA. But hey, I don't judge a ref by 1 call. If Joey officiated every Pacers game from now until he retires, I would be happy. I would put him in the top ten all-time refs in my 30 years watching the NBA. If it weren't for his temper and over abundnace on calling techs, he'd be in my top 3 or 4. The fact that people know who he is or doesn't know who he is, tells me nothing.

To the pacers, they have maybe not turned the corner, but they are playing much better overall than a couple of weeks ago. But without Danny this is probably just a slightly better than a .500 team

BRushWithDeath
11-28-2012, 09:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnboXiq33os

I just love this so much.

Brinocerous
11-28-2012, 11:10 AM
• I know that it is conventional wisdom that Joey Crawford is a great ref. I’m sorry I just disagree. That blocking foul that we all love so much was actually the wrong call and his gross over exaggeration of the call just goes further to prove that he is all about “look at me” when he refs. a game. Sure he is not afraid to call fouls on stars or hit the home team but often times he’s just as wrong as the rest of them are and frankly the fact that everybody in the free world knows him tells me he doesn’t do his job very well.


I would agree with ya. I think he's a mostly fair ref in that he doesn't seem to favor one team or the other with the lousy calls. But he lets his big bald ego get in the way of the game far too often. A good official would have called the tech on Kobe 3 seconds later after the 4 on 1 break was over. A good official does not need to prance halfway down the floor to call a block. Both of those calls last night are huge red flags that Crawford lacks adequate control over his ego/emotions to be in the "good official" category.

Hicks
11-28-2012, 11:19 AM
I love/hate Joey Crawford

Derek2k3
11-28-2012, 11:53 AM
Only time for some quick bullet points tonight guys, sorry.



• Lance didn’t really help a lot tonight either however he had a pair of big rebounds in the second half.

• Ian Mahinmi actually looked a lot like the Ian from pre-season and Lord knows tonight we needed it and unlike our starting small forward he actually hit the majority of his free throws.

• I know that it is conventional wisdom that Joey Crawford is a great ref. I’m sorry I just disagree. That blocking foul that we all love so much was actually the wrong call and his gross over exaggeration of the call just goes further to prove that he is all about “look at me” when he refs. a game. Sure he is not afraid to call fouls on stars or hit the home team but often times he’s just as wrong as the rest of them are and frankly the fact that everybody in the free world knows him tells me he doesn’t do his job very well.



1- Lance made 2 great cuts leading to easy lay-ins. In a game that featured 79 points, getting "easy" buckets is something to commend.

2- Ian was great last night. Starter out with foul trouble, comes in and stays clean himself. Think about it: If Ian fouls everything that moves, we end up David at the 5 guarding Dwight. *shudder*

3- I don't think that's conventional wisdom. In fact, I think he's rather despised by fans/teams for his absurd antics and awful calls. The only mildly positive thing he's known for is not being afraid to T up stars/coaches.

Derek2k3
11-28-2012, 11:58 AM
I have to point out that although Mahinmi played well.....there were a few plays on the offensive end where he tried to do more than he was capable of doing....like driving to the hoop then losing the ball on the dribble.

I agree that Mahinmi putting up 8 to 10 points is great....but I don't get the sense that his offensive game should consist of anything more than hitting a wide open Mid-range jumpshot, scoring on some put backs ( a la Udonis Haslem ) and getting to the FT line.


Any time Ian drove, it was either:

a) the offense was going stagnant. Seemed as though Frank was wanting them to make quicker decisions.
b) Howard gave him a lane
c) Late in the SC

If you re-watch parts of the game, notice how Ian forced Dwight to work just as hard, if not harder, once Roy went out. Ian was getting and keeping solid position all night long, and really frustrating Dwight.


Without looking it up online, I would guess the Pacers have a pretty good recent record against the Lakers at Staples Center. It seems we win there almost every time we play them, very odd.

Actually, no.


I think we lost every time we played there from 99-00 (the year it opened) to 09-10. Our win two years ago was the first time we ever beat them at Staples, IIRC. Now we're on a nice three game streak there.

Correct, 0-9


Someone tweeted that we've won three in a row there..

Also correct. Pacers are on a 3 game win streak in LA, after losing their previous 9 attempts.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 12:22 PM
No one said he'll ever be an "impact player." Certainly not me. Just that he's far from a walking $4 million mistake like so many people are quick to accuse him of.

One good game ouf of 15 still does not make him be worth 4mil a year for the next four years, the same with Green and his one good game long time ago, lets hope they get better but so far that's wasted money.

And nope I'm not trying to be negative I'm just telling it like it is without the blinders.

Pacertron
11-28-2012, 12:24 PM
Cut Young, sign Raja Bell?

In a heartbeat.

bunt
11-28-2012, 12:26 PM
And nope I'm not trying to be negative I'm just telling it like it is without the blinders.

Thank goodness for that. We need someone to keep everyone in check and point out anytime a player has a bad game or is in a slump. Lol

ColeTheMole
11-28-2012, 01:55 PM
Cut Young, sign Raja Bell?

That would be great if the flopping fines didn't exist this year. Unfortunately, after his first game he would amass 1,500,000 dollars of fines and be suspended for ten games.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 01:58 PM
Cut Young, sign Raja Bell?

Bell is not the same player he once was, Bell is still in Utah's roster by the way.

Heisenberg
11-28-2012, 01:58 PM
One good game ouf of 15 still does not make him be worth 4mil a year for the next four years, the same with Green and his one good game long time ago, lets hope they get better but so far that's wasted money.

And nope I'm not trying to be negative I'm just telling it like it is without the blinders.
This is what I'm talking about with the narrative building. "One good game out of 15."

Sparhawk
11-28-2012, 02:03 PM
How do the Pacers not get Lance more involved on the offensive end. He can get his own shot, and one of the few players that can. But they mostly just stick him in a corner. Get the ball in his hands. He had 0 dimes last night...and 0 TOs. Missed some shots though, but then everyone did.

I'm ready for some kind of change, namely the coach.

Eleazar
11-28-2012, 02:11 PM
This is what I'm talking about with the narrative building. "One good game out of 15."

Yeah, eventually you start having to add the one good games up, instead of conveniently forgetting the other good games.

notque
11-28-2012, 02:13 PM
Bell is not the same player he once was, Bell is still in Utah's roster by the way.

The Jazz have informed Bell that his agent can find a suitable move to a different team. Utah will buy out whatever is left on his contract, and he'll sign with his new team for the veteran's minimum.

Older Raja Bell is better than Sam Young. And Raja Bell can still score a bit, and has 3 point range.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 02:17 PM
This is what I'm talking about with the narrative building. "One good game out of 15."

One or two good games were he showed that he is worth the 4mil they are paying him? yes, unless you count pre-season were he looked like Olajuwon, so far he has looked like crap, at least for a 4mil a year player.(And nope Seth I'm not looking a Sinergy either).

I like the guy by the way and I was happy for a minute when they made the trade I just don't think that he has live up to his contract, the same goes for Hibbert, Green and Augustin, I'm not a huge fan of Young but at least he doesn't have a long term contract and is not making as much either so he is easier to forget.

Eleazar
11-28-2012, 02:22 PM
How do the Pacers not get Lance more involved on the offensive end. He can get his own shot, and one of the few players that can. But they mostly just stick him in a corner. Get the ball in his hands. He had 0 dimes last night...and 0 TOs. Missed some shots though, but then everyone did.

I'm ready for some kind of change, namely the coach.

Did you not see what happened when we did try that last night? The offense was horrible because he was trying to do everything on his own, but wasn't able to. Granted a part of that was playing against Artest, but it just highlighted how far he still needs to go before he should be "freed".

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 02:22 PM
The Jazz have informed Bell that his agent can find a suitable move to a different team. Utah will buy out whatever is left on his contract, and he'll sign with his new team for the veteran's minimum.

Older Raja Bell is better than Sam Young. And Raja Bell can still score a bit, and has 3 point range.

If Bell becomes a free agent there is not doubt he goes to LA, I rather aim higher and make a trade to bring somebody else.

Cousy47
11-28-2012, 02:25 PM
I think Hansbrough is becoming the new Foster. Plahys defense, hustles, bangs people around and ticks them off and rebounds. All he needs is resigned and over paid and the replacement is done.

Pacertron
11-28-2012, 02:53 PM
I think Hansbrough is becoming the new Foster. Plahys defense, hustles, bangs people around and ticks them off and rebounds. All he needs is resigned and over paid and the replacement is done.

In terms of his hustle absolutely. Very much needed. Even though he is a bull on offense, he has a better offensive skill set than Foster. I for one would be happy if Tyler followed in Foster's footsteps as a lifelong Pacer.

notque
11-28-2012, 02:57 PM
If Bell becomes a free agent there is not doubt he goes to LA, I rather aim higher and make a trade to bring somebody else.

I'm fine with aiming higher, but while we still have Sam Young on the team, we need to aim for average.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 03:06 PM
I'm fine with aiming higher, but while we still have Sam Young on the team, we need to aim for average.

Like I said before I don't really care what Young is doing and for 800k you can do worse, I like to compare value with production and so far Young is on the bottom of the list, I'm not saying that I love the guy or that I want to see him playing but to me he is playing for a reason, because the guys in front of him are not doing better.

I might ad that one thing I don't like about Young is that he has the ability or the bad luck to give away a lot of and 1's to whatever player he is guarding, he gives at least two or three and 1's per game.

Sparhawk
11-28-2012, 03:07 PM
In terms of his hustle absolutely. Very much needed. Even though he is a bull on offense, he has a better offensive skill set than Foster. I for one would be happy if Tyler followed in Foster's footsteps as a lifelong Pacer.

Good lord, Bird wanted a team of Fosters. First Tyler, then Plumlee. He left before he had ample time to bring his real plan to fruition.

notque
11-28-2012, 03:24 PM
Like I said before I don't really care what Young is doing and for 800k you can do worse, I like to compare value with production and so far Young is on the bottom of the list, I'm not saying that I love the guy or that I want to see him playing but to me he is playing for a reason, because the guys in front of him are not doing better.

I might ad that one thing I don't like about Young is that he has the ability or the bad luck to give away a lot of and 1's to whatever player he is guarding, he gives at least two or three and 1's per game.

I wouldn't care what Sam Young was doing if he wasn't playing. The fact I have to watch him drive to the basket and completely screw up is an issue.

If he just stuck to defense and jumpers and otherwise didn't bother doing the things he can't do, I'd be much less annoyed. But you can watch him out of control running at the basket and know a turnover is on it's way.

Since86
11-28-2012, 03:26 PM
The great defensive numbers have continued to hold for the Ps. They hold opponents to the worst fg% in the league, rebound the most, outrebound their opponents the most, and leading the league in blocks.

If the Pacers ever figure out to be consistant on the offensive end, the can really turn their record around quickly.

docpaul
11-28-2012, 03:34 PM
The great defensive numbers have continued to hold for the Ps. They hold opponents to the worst fg% in the league, rebound the most, outrebound their opponents the most, and leading the league in blocks.

If the Pacers ever figure out to be consistant on the offensive end, the can really turn their record around quickly.

IMO, if Hibbert simply reverts back to his FG% and FGA averages, we would be winning a significantly larger number of games.

Without Granger.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 03:40 PM
I wouldn't care what Sam Young was doing if he wasn't playing. The fact I have to watch him drive to the basket and completely screw up is an issue.

If he just stuck to defense and jumpers and otherwise didn't bother doing the things he can't do, I'd be much less annoyed. But you can watch him out of control running at the basket and know a turnover is on it's way.

I see that you feel about Young the same way I feel about Green and Mahinmi, the only difference is that Young doesn't have a long term contract and is not making much, in fact he is the type of player/contract I would like for the Pacers to get instead of signing similar scrubs for more.

I agree with you though, I wish he didn't try to be such an offensive weapon because he is just not that good on offense, at least we need to thank god he is not making much and probably won't be back next year.

Eleazar
11-28-2012, 03:40 PM
The great defensive numbers have continued to hold for the Ps. They hold opponents to the worst fg% in the league, rebound the most, outrebound their opponents the most, and leading the league in blocks.

If the Pacers ever figure out to be consistant on the offensive end, the can really turn their record around quickly.

If that happened we would quickly be considered an elite team.

BillS
11-28-2012, 03:43 PM
The great defensive numbers have continued to hold for the Ps. They hold opponents to the worst fg% in the league, rebound the most, outrebound their opponents the most, and leading the league in blocks.

If the Pacers ever figure out to be consistant on the offensive end, the can really turn their record around quickly.

Well, there are an awful lot of people saying that the Pacers only have great defensive numbers because most teams have played like crap against them.

Me, I give the defense a HECK of a lot of credit for that, but who am I next to ESPN?

CJ Jones
11-28-2012, 04:04 PM
Did you not see what happened when we did try that last night? The offense was horrible because he was trying to do everything on his own, but wasn't able to. Granted a part of that was playing against Artest, but it just highlighted how far he still needs to go before he should be "freed".

Wasn't the offense horrible anyway? I wouldn't pin those plays all on Lance, guys were just standing around clueless. Overall his game wasn't bad. He had a couple drives that led to the ball being swung around the perimeter for open shots, played good D, handled the ball very well, and was plus 9 on the court.

Free Lance!!! lol

docpaul
11-28-2012, 04:12 PM
Well, there are an awful lot of people saying that the Pacers only have great defensive numbers because most teams have played like crap against them.

Me, I give the defense a HECK of a lot of credit for that, but who am I next to ESPN?

I'd like to team up with some people (you perhaps?) to come up with data to support that claim. I think it's there.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 04:22 PM
Well, there are an awful lot of people saying that the Pacers only have great defensive numbers because most teams have played like crap against them.

Me, I give the defense a HECK of a lot of credit for that, but who am I next to ESPN?

I have not seen anybody saying that and yes we have to give the Pacers D a lot of credit for what they are doing, specially Roy and Paul George.

CableKC
11-28-2012, 04:27 PM
No one said he'll ever be an "impact player." Certainly not me. Just that he's far from a walking $4 million mistake like so many people are quick to accuse him of.
Apologies....."impact player" is the wrong word to use. I meant more of a rotational Player that can be counted on to contribute on the offensive and defensive end of the court...think a "slightly better offensive version" of Jeff Foster.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you that Mahinmi ( much like Green ) just needs some time to adjust to his role on the Team and that he can contribute more....I'm simply trying to assess his offensive skills beyond a solid mid-range jumpshot ( for a Big Man ), getting put-back points while going for rebounds and being a solid FT shooter for a Big Man.

What I don't know if he has any other type of reliable go-to-moves that can be relied upon if he is called upon to score....or if he will get his points like the way that Foster did

docpaul
11-28-2012, 04:35 PM
Apologies....."impact player" is the wrong word to use. I meant more of a rotational Player that can be counted on to contribute on the offensive and defensive end of the court...think a "slightly better offensive version" of Jeff Foster.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you that Mahinmi ( much like Green ) just needs some time to adjust to his role on the Team and that he can contribute more....I'm simply trying to assess his offensive skills beyond a solid mid-range jumpshot ( for a Big Man ), getting put-back points while going for rebounds and being a solid FT shooter for a Big Man.

What I don't know if he has any other type of reliable go-to-moves that can be relied upon if he is called upon to score....or if he will get his points like the way that Foster did

The guy had taken a total of ~400 attempts *total* in his previous four seasons. Expecting well developed, reliable offensive moves might be a reach at this point in his career.

This is the first time in his career where he's actually being given the chance to really contribute offensively. A decent midrange shot along with put-backs seems like a good start. :) Expecting a refined post game is more realistic within a year or two.

CableKC
11-28-2012, 04:39 PM
The great defensive numbers have continued to hold for the Ps. They hold opponents to the worst fg% in the league, rebound the most, outrebound their opponents the most, and leading the league in blocks.

If the Pacers ever figure out to be consistant on the offensive end, the can really turn their record around quickly.
This is what I am saying.......the defense and offense for the Starting lineup is great....but the weakest aspect of this Team is the 2nd unit and it's ability to score. It may take another month...but I think that with a combination of Vogel figuring out what the best combination of Starters and the 2nd Unit and DJ, Green, Mahinmi and ( most notably ) Stephenson becoming more comfortable with their roles when they are on the floor...I think that the scoring end of the 2nd Unit equation is going to figure itself out. I know that it will suck for another couple of weeks if not for the next month....but I think that they just need time. As you suggest....once they figure it out....heck, even if Green and Stephenson becomes more confident.....we'll become far more competitive.

Another related question in relation to the 2nd unit....we know that the offense sucks with most of the Players from the 2nd unit ( often having to rely upon a Starter to score )...but how is the overall defense of Green, Mahinmi, Young and Stephenson ( I'm including him in the discussion for the long-term ) when they are on the floor?

docpaul
11-28-2012, 04:43 PM
This is what I am saying.......the weakest aspect of this Team is the 2nd unit and it's ability to score. It may take another month...but I think that with a combination of Vogel figuring out what the best combination of Starters and the 2nd Unit and DJ, Green, Mahinmi and ( most notably ) Stephenson becoming more comfortable with their roles when they are on the floor...I think that the scoring end of the 2nd Unit equation is going to figure itself out. I know that it will suck for another couple of weeks if not for the next month....but I think that they just need time. As you suggest....once they figure it out....heck, even if Green and Stephenson becomes more confident.....we'll become far more competitive.

Another related question in relation to the 2nd unit....we know that the offense sucks with most of the Players from the 2nd unit ( often having to rely upon a Starter to score )...but how is the overall defense of Green, Mahinmi, Young and Stephenson ( I'm including him in the discussion for the long-term ) when they are on the floor?

Surprised you haven't pointed out that 3 out of the starting 5 (Hill, George, and Hibbert) are shooting at or below 40%?

Isn't that an issue? :)

CableKC
11-28-2012, 04:55 PM
Surprised you haven't pointed out that 3 out of the starting 5 (Hill, George, and Hibbert) are shooting at or below 40%?

Isn't that an issue? :)
Not as much of an issue compared to the 2nd unit scoring.

I'm not as concerned as much with the scoring from Hill, GH and Hibbert....I think that their scoring and shooting will improve over time as they adjust to life without Granger...for the next 2-3 months...and then will continue to improve when Granger does return.

Believe me, I hate the PG shooting percentage sucks compared to last year....but I know that he also has a far different role than he did last year. I hate the Hibbert has reverted to Bruce Banner compared to the Hulk that he was in the Playoffs last year....but I think that all of these concerns will recede over time.

BillS
11-28-2012, 05:23 PM
I have not seen anybody saying that and yes we have to give the Pacers D a lot of credit for what they are doing, specially Roy and Paul George.

ESPN today pretty much said the Lakers' only problem was their offense. No real mention of Pacers' defense, at least while I was watching at the health club.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 05:36 PM
ESPN today pretty much said the Lakers' only problem was their offense. No real mention of Pacers' defense, at least while I was watching at the health club.

Well their offense is horrible, not just for the game last night but the whole season reason why they got rid of Mike Brown and hired D'Antoni(an offensive coach).

BillS
11-28-2012, 05:41 PM
Well their offense is horrible, not just for the game last night but the whole season reason why they got rid of Mike Brown and hired D'Antoni(an offensive coach).

I thought their offensive average was 99 ppg. Last night they scored 77. Now, either their offense was 20+% worse than their usual bad offense, or the Pacers' defense made them look even worse than usual.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 05:55 PM
I thought their offensive average was 99 ppg. Last night they scored 77. Now, either their offense was 20+% worse than their usual bad offense, or the Pacers' defense made them look even worse than usual.

By bad offense I mean no offense at all, I've been watching them since the begginning of the year and they don't know what to do in offense, yes they score 99 points per game but they score that much because of the weapons they have not because their offense is that good.

Not saying that the Pacers D didn't have anything to do with it but acting like the Pacers shut them down is not accurate in my opinion.

Edit: For example Morris was open must of the night and he made 0 out of 6 open uncontested shots, Artest had similar open shots and made 1 out of 8, Jamison 1 out of 7, Duhon 0 out of 3, Meeks 0 out of 3.

Note that I'm just counting the players that in the majority of their time on the floor were shooting long jumpers and uncontested 3's, Kobe, Gasol and Howard were to me the only ones that were taking contested shots must of the time and great job by the Pacers defense for somewhat controlling them.

BillS
11-28-2012, 06:18 PM
By bad offense I mean no offense at all, I've been watching them since the begginning of the year and they don't know what to do in offense, yes they score 99 points per game but they score that much because of the weapons they have not because their offense is that good.

Not saying that the Pacers D didn't have anything to do with it but acting like the Pacers shut them down is not accurate in my opinion.

These are serious questions, I'm not just blowing you off -

1) If a "bad" offense is still "effective" - meaning it puts up 99 points per game - what exactly are you describing as "bad" and what is it that makes the "bad" part of the offense matter? My reason for asking this is that even if your offense is "give it to the superstar and let him score" I wouldn't describe it as "no" offense unless the superstar isn't scoring. For it to be "bad", there must be something that renders it vulnerable - inconsistency, subject to failure if a single component isn't present, etc.

2) If a "bad" offense is rendered "ineffective" - meaning it puts up 20% fewer points in a game - what DID shut them down? Is it that the offense as it stands has already shown to have a deviation that in and of itself explains a 20-point swing? I'd submit that this is the lowest regular season point total for the Lakers, 5 points lower than the previous (which was against San Antonio, arguably a strong defensive team that WOULD get credit for "shutting them down"), and near the outside end of 2 standard deviations from that average point total. That would qualify, to me, as "shut down" no matter how "bad" the opponent offense actually is.

In other words, yes, the Lakers aren't the offensive powerhouse they have been in years past. However, the Pacers defense took the current Laker offense to an extended low, which can't be sufficiently explained by the inconsistency of the Lakers offense or by unforced failure of individual players. After such an analysis, I think we CAN say the Pacers defense was more than just peripherally involved and was likely the most significant factor in the Lakers offensive (in both senses of the word) performance.

rexnom
11-28-2012, 06:20 PM
The Lakers scored 115 against the Mavs over the weekend, btw. Their offense is improving. We exploited their offensive weaknesses by clogging the lane with our bigs and they don't really have anyone to take advantage of our biggest weakness at PG. i also thought we did a good job limiting Kobe's effectiveness as a facilitator and closing out on threes. For a team without players to create offense for others by getting into the lane, a big team like the Pacers is a nightmare.

If they had hit a regular percent of FTs and limited TOs a bit, I still doubt they would have cracked 90. We definitely lucked out a bit but, then again, we had some bad luck on offense too. We'll take it.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 06:23 PM
By the way did anybody else noticed that people were yelling at Morris not to shoot it anymore? :laugh: that guy is just a horrible player.

CableKC
11-28-2012, 06:33 PM
By the way did anybody else noticed that people were yelling at Morris not to shoot it anymore? :laugh: that guy is just a horrible player.
Well, I know some fans that were cheering him ( and Duhon ) to shoot more ;)

Naptown_Seth
11-28-2012, 08:27 PM
BAMF's go to move, his "Reggie Miller curl off screen, leg kicking 3PA" = pushing into 2 guys, literally shoving them away and then hitting the soft one footed fade away. He might be the most physical pure offensive player in the game. I swear he actually enjoys the contact as part of his scoring move. You could probably defend him better by not letting him bump into you.



Ian absolutely has an issue with ball handling on drives, that's his weak spot and the next area he needs to improve. I think he can, but for now it's a TO waiting to happen. He is athletic and smooth enough to get it, much in the way that PG could also take better care of the ball.



I love/hate Joey Crawford
Me too. I love the insta-tech, not dealing with this crap attitude, but sometimes he needs to realize that not every call is beyond question. Let a guy have a voice on a call that maybe you missed or was at least close. There are ways to handle things without being so over the top.

However I do think a lot of this comes from a passion he has for reffing. And that brings me back to liking him.

Naptown_Seth
11-28-2012, 08:40 PM
In terms of his hustle absolutely. Very much needed. Even though he is a bull on offense, he has a better offensive skill set than Foster. I for one would be happy if Tyler followed in Foster's footsteps as a lifelong Pacer.
Foster's hops make fun of Tyler's hops and then beat the hell out of them. This is not close. Foster had one of the quickest verts in the game before the back problems. I saw him catch one pass virtually at the rim on a full sprint and still get it up and over. His quick vert was part of his 2nd ups that allowed him to contest, land and then go back up for another shot at the board.

Tyler has none of this. As Peck pointed out Tyler looked overmatched by size/vertical game all night. He doesn't contest rebounds vertically, only laterally when he bangs around into people and chases them down after they hit the floor or at least shoulder height.

In that regard he is an elite hustler and he is an elite foul drawer. But in basically every other way he remains quite sub-par. His lack of vertical power is a big factor in his poor FG% and why he has a HUGE amount of blocked dunk attempts (check 82games.com).


Ian is smoother and stronger than Foster, not as quick and doesn't have his vertical (quickness or distance). Ian has a more reliable jumper, neither could dribble drive. Ian does have a post game that is usable at least. Foster might have the edge on defense due to hands.

Ian should be the better offensive player when it's all said and done but he'll never be the rebounder Foster was.

Anthem
11-28-2012, 09:08 PM
Foster's hops make fun of Tyler's hops and then beat the hell out of them.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't think Tyler could dunk it from the free throw line? Get out of here.

Naptown_Seth
11-28-2012, 09:13 PM
I'd like to team up with some people (you perhaps?) to come up with data to support that claim. I think it's there.
So far the average ranking for the teams the Pacers have faced in both FG% and PPG is 16th. The Pacers have played 6 games against teams ranked in the top 10 for FG% and 4 games against teams in the top 10 of PPG. However this includes the Spurs twice.

On the other hand they also only have 6 games against teams in the bottom 10 in FG% and 4 in the bottom 10 of PPG.

So an average distribution of opponents, not too hard nor too easy.


BUT...only 4 times out of 15 have teams scored above their average PPG. The Spurs by 2 the other night, the Hornets by 13 in OT, the TWolves by 4 and the Kings by 4 in 2OT. SIX times they've held opponents to at least 5 points below their average, contrasted with only 1 team going for more than 5 points over their average...and that's in an OT game. They've held 4 opponents to more than 10 below their average PPG and 3 of those teams are top 11 FG% teams (Dallas, New York, LAL)


This suggests a non-normalized random distribution. We should expect an average set of opponents to yield about a 50/50 split of above/below their scoring average. Instead we have clear weighting toward many teams scoring far below their norm and only a few getting above their norm even a small amount.

The debate about their defensive capability is really pretty silly actually. This isn't even close. It's just more subjective analysis by the king of it. Remember the examples that support the POV, forget or ignore the ones that don't.



PS - if I removed their scores against the Pacers from their total PPG average then these numbers would be even more skewed because 12 out of 15 opponents would see a rise in their overall PPG. What these teams do against Indiana is worse than what they do against other teams, and that's true for virtually every opponent.

Naptown_Seth
11-28-2012, 09:18 PM
Are you trying to tell me that you don't think Tyler could dunk it from the free throw line? Get out of here.
I love how so many PD'ers were buying the junk Bird was selling about Tyler's workout vertical. Sure you didn't see it for 4 years in UNC, but once we got him behind closed doors it was LOOK OUT!

I don't hate Tyler, I hate his insane fanbase and the disconnect between merit earned support and the amount of support he actually gets. Tyler's a good, hard working kid that I can easily root for if I wasn't always dealing with "he's so great" comments.

Pacerized
11-28-2012, 09:28 PM
I love how so many PD'ers were buying the junk Bird was selling about Tyler's workout vertical. Sure you didn't see it for 4 years in UNC, but once we got him behind closed doors it was LOOK OUT!

I don't hate Tyler, I hate his insane fanbase and the disconnect between merit earned support and the amount of support he actually gets. Tyler's a good, hard working kid that I can easily root for if I wasn't always dealing with "he's so great" comments.


I think I'm fairly objective concerning Tyler. I don't think we'll ever see him in an all star game but there is a place for him on this team as an energy player. I see very little love given to him on here and I can't think of anyone calling him great in the past 2 years.

hackashaq
11-29-2012, 06:06 AM
David West always does well vs. Gasol.
But Gasol right now looks like he has no confidence. The Lakers should probably blame themselves and David Stern, though. He was a key to their 3 finals, then they trade him and fail at it, and then they ask him to sacrifice his game for Bynum and phase him out of his offensive comfort zones. It's a shame.

McKeyFan
11-29-2012, 08:33 AM
Wasn't the offense horrible anyway? I wouldn't pin those plays all on Lance, guys were just standing around clueless. Overall his game wasn't bad. He had a couple drives that led to the ball being swung around the perimeter for open shots, played good D, handled the ball very well, and was plus 9 on the court.

Free Lance!!! lol
Exactly. Lance was waiting for guys to do something to start a play. Nobody did. Finally he had to try something and he took an outside shot. This happened once, maybe twice. It didn't look at all to me like a clear out for him to do something.

I'll stick with my opinion that when the clamps come down by a great defense (not the Lakers lol) or in the playoffs, that neither Hill nor George will be able to loosen up the defense. We will need Lance.

LG33
11-29-2012, 09:55 AM
BUT...only 4 times out of 15 have teams scored above their average PPG. The Spurs by 2 the other night, the Hornets by 13 in OT, the TWolves by 4 and the Kings by 4 in 2OT. SIX times they've held opponents to at least 5 points below their average, contrasted with only 1 team going for more than 5 points over their average...and that's in an OT game. They've held 4 opponents to more than 10 below their average PPG and 3 of those teams are top 11 FG% teams (Dallas, New York, LAL)


This suggests a non-normalized random distribution. We should expect an average set of opponents to yield about a 50/50 split of above/below their scoring average. Instead we have clear weighting toward many teams scoring far below their norm and only a few getting above their norm even a small amount.

How does pace figure into all this? Are we're using up more of the shot clock than other teams, giving our opponents fewer opportunities to score over the course of a game?

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 10:41 AM
How does pace figure into all this? Are we're using up more of the shot clock than other teams, giving our opponents fewer opportunities to score over the course of a game?

This would make sense, if opponents weren't averaging more FGA against the Pacers than they normally would. (although I think that has to do with turnovers, and lower fg% more than anything)

docpaul
11-29-2012, 11:23 AM
How does pace figure into all this? Are we're using up more of the shot clock than other teams, giving our opponents fewer opportunities to score over the course of a game?

We have one of the slowest paces in the NBA.

docpaul
11-29-2012, 11:28 AM
The debate about their defensive capability is really pretty silly actually. This isn't even close. It's just more subjective analysis by the king of it. Remember the examples that support the POV, forget or ignore the ones that don't.


Great post. Agreed that it's silly to debate high Pacer defensive effectiveness given the sample size we now have.

What I'm interested in, is understanding what about the Pacer defense is causing the low FG%. From my eyes, opponents do get open looks reasonably often. They're just missing them.

Are there stats kept around %'s of contested shots per team defense?
How about statistics about when in the possession (from a timing perspective) shots go off?

I spent some time looking on the net last night and didn't find a whole lot.

Since86
11-29-2012, 12:52 PM
In other words, yes, the Lakers aren't the offensive powerhouse they have been in years past.

The Lakers might not be a top 4 offensive team, but their 8th in FG% now. The only reason why they don't score, is because they turn the ball over. They're #1 in team TOs at 17.2 a game.

Trying to argue that the Lakers suck offensively, which is why their shooting percentage was so low, just isn't reality.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 01:15 PM
The Pacers were 17-of-27 from the foul line against the Lakers. Luckily for Indiana, the Lakers were 23-of-43.

Thanks god for the Pacers free throw defense ............... :teacher:

Trader Joe
11-29-2012, 01:21 PM
Thanks god for the Pacers free throw defense ............... :teacher:

9 of those 20 misses were by Dwight Howard. The Lakers haven't been a great free throw shooting team all season and have still been scoring much more than they did on Tuesday. :teacher:

Since86
11-29-2012, 01:25 PM
66.8% on FTs as a team for the entire year, so missing FTs (especially for Howard) is their pattern. Shooting poorly from the field, isn't their pattern. (Here's a secret, the Lakers have shot less than 44.4%, league median, three times, including the Pacers game)

No need to acknowledge stats though. He watches the game, and his eyes are never wrong.

BillS
11-29-2012, 02:15 PM
Thanks god for the Pacers free throw defense ............... :teacher:
OK, so shooting 53% FT instead of 67% FT accounts for 6 of the 22 fewer points they scored this game. Granting for the sake of argument that those misses can't be attributed to the Pacers defense (it could be argued that good defense forces you to work harder thus making you tired, but we'll accept "no effect" for now), what lucky circumstances explain the other 16 points differential?

What effect on an opponent's offense do you expect from an "average" or "good" defense? What improvement do you expect to an opponent's offense from a "bad" defense? What special effects would you expect from a "great" or even "elite" defense?

You have always seemed to really focus on defense in your player evaluations, so I'm asking you to explain what it is you see that says that a defense that remains #1 in opponent FG%, second in opponent 3pt%, and third in opponent points per game is merely "good"?

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 02:41 PM
OK, so shooting 53% FT instead of 67% FT accounts for 6 of the 22 fewer points they scored this game. Granting for the sake of argument that those misses can't be attributed to the Pacers defense (it could be argued that good defense forces you to work harder thus making you tired, but we'll accept "no effect" for now), what lucky circumstances explain the other 16 points differential?

What effect on an opponent's offense do you expect from an "average" or "good" defense? What improvement do you expect to an opponent's offense from a "bad" defense? What special effects would you expect from a "great" or even "elite" defense?

You have always seemed to really focus on defense in your player evaluations, so I'm asking you to explain what it is you see that says that a defense that remains #1 in opponent FG%, second in opponent 3pt%, and third in opponent points per game is merely "good"?

I still don't understand why you keep thinking that someway somehow I'm trashing the Pacers defense, all I'm saying is that the Pacers defense was not the only issue with the Lakers in that game, there is a lot s*** going on with the Lakers, yes you can show me all the stats to prove one point or another but the fact is that the Lakers missed a lot of free throws, they had a bunch of guy missing open shots after open shots and for some reason they had that Morris player in the game jacking up shots too.

Again I'm not saying that the Pacers don't have an elite defense, all I'm saying is that before coming out with the celebration and before acting like the Pacers are the new era "bad boys Detroit Pistons" you need to look at the whole picture in why the Pacers beat the Lakers that's all.

Another thing people keep missing is that the Lakers are also missing Nash and Blake, those two guys are a huge part of their offense, replacing those two with scrubs like Morris and Duhon is as bad as replacing DC/Hill with AJ Price maybe worse.

For the sake of argument and to stop with this argument I'm going to say that the Pacers defense had about 60% to do with the Lakers loss with a huge percentage going to them missing Nash/Blake, missing open easy shots, missing free throws, Gasol dissapearing and the new coach with a new system.

Since86
11-29-2012, 02:45 PM
Again I'm not saying that the Pacers don't have an elite defense, all I'm saying is that before coming out with the celebration and before acting like the Pacers are the new era "bad boys Detroit Pistons" you need to look at the whole picture in why the Pacers beat the Lakers that's all.


:laugh: No one has said anything close to it, nor implied it. You always fall back on the defense that you're just fighting extremism, but the only extremist things being said are the ones that you make up.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 02:52 PM
:laugh: No one has said anything close to it, nor implied it. You always fall back on the defense that you're just fighting extremism, but the only extremist things being said are the ones that you make up.

I'm not the one celebrating that the Pacers defense kept a team like the Los Angeles Lakers under 77% shooting while not providing other facts, you like to use numbers to prove points while forgetting other points you are the master of doing that.

Since86
11-29-2012, 03:03 PM
I'm not the one celebrating that the Pacers defense kept a team like the Los Angeles Lakers under 77% shooting while not providing other facts, you like to use numbers to prove points while forgetting other points you are the master of doing that.

You are in your own little world. Everytime someone brings up facts to dispute your claims, you tell people that you don't need data because you watch the game, and now you're criticizing me for supposedly not providing facts, when that's pretty much all I've done.

I've provided the Lakers season FT%, their season FG%, the number of games they've shot below the NBA FG% median, the Pacers defensive fg%, and mutliple other stats, and here you are complaining that I don't use any. :laugh:

BillS
11-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Again I'm not saying that the Pacers don't have an elite defense, all I'm saying is that before coming out with the celebration and before acting like the Pacers are the new era "bad boys Detroit Pistons" you need to look at the whole picture in why the Pacers beat the Lakers that's all.

And I'm saying that even AFTER looking at everything else the Pacers defense remains outstanding, so why NOT celebrate it? "Not the only thing" doesn't mean "not worth getting excited about".

Trader Joe
11-29-2012, 03:07 PM
Hey guys you know how we would really win a bunch of games, go sign or trade for every under 6'3" scoring combo guard who becomes available and doesn't play a lick of defense.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 03:16 PM
And I'm saying that even AFTER looking at everything else the Pacers defense remains outstanding, so why NOT celebrate it? "Not the only thing" doesn't mean "not worth getting excited about".

Yes you can get excited about it but when somebody else brings another point of view to the table you shouldn't just automatically go into "Pacers defensive mode" and forget that we are all here to have open arguments.

BillS
11-29-2012, 03:55 PM
Yes you can get excited about it but when somebody else brings another point of view to the table you shouldn't just automatically go into "Pacers defensive mode" and forget that we are all here to have open arguments.

Umm, did I not provide a whole BUNCH of data to support the position?

No one was arguing that you were wrong for bringing up the Lakers offense, just that the Pacers defense was still terrific. The data bears that out. How is that not having an "open argument"?

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 04:09 PM
Umm, did I not provide a whole BUNCH of data to support the position?

No one was arguing that you were wrong for bringing up the Lakers offense, just that the Pacers defense was still terrific. The data bears that out. How is that not having an "open argument"?

Oh yes, some people think I'm trashing the Pacers defense or that I live in "my own little world" so I'm wrong for bringing up the Lakers offense issues.

Eleazar
11-29-2012, 04:16 PM
Oh yes, some people think I'm trashing the Pacers defense or that I live in "my own little world" so I'm wrong for bringing up the Lakers offense issues.

What was the point of bringing up the Lakers offense though? It wasn't like our defense didn't do a great job. It isn't like the Lakers offense was just slightly worse than usual.

Since86
11-29-2012, 04:16 PM
No one said you're wrong for merely brining it up. It's a logical conclusion. You're wrong because you dismiss factual data and try to stranglehold your opinion that directly contradicts the data being brought up to you.

BRushWithDeath
11-29-2012, 04:18 PM
OK, so shooting 53% FT instead of 67% FT accounts for 6 of the 22 fewer points they scored this game. Granting for the sake of argument that those misses can't be attributed to the Pacers defense (it could be argued that good defense forces you to work harder thus making you tired, but we'll accept "no effect" for now), what lucky circumstances explain the other 16 points differential?

I would imagine the snail's pace that that we play at would factor into some of those points.

Still, pace adjusted, we're currently an elite defensive team despite being the worst team at forcing turnovers in the NBA.

BillS
11-29-2012, 04:20 PM
Oh yes, some people think I'm trashing the Pacers defense or that I live in "my own little world" so I'm wrong for bringing up the Lakers offense issues.

That's because the WAY you brought it up really did sound like you were saying the Pacers defense had little or nothing to do with the Lakers scoring 77 points.

For example, this quote in reply to defensive statistics from the postgame thread:


Both teams shot a horrible percentage last night, both teams missed a lot of open uncontested shots, both teams missed a lot of free throws, lets look a this numbers you are posting with a truck load of salt :twocents:

"a truck load of salt" really is a way of saying "pretty close to worthless". There are ways of saying "look at the other factors" without saying "the factors you are already looking at aren't valid" - just saying "a GRAIN of salt" would get the point across without slamming the opposing point of view.

It's a turn of phrase or a habit or just your way of poking people whose glasses are a little rosier, but it seems like any time anybody brings up anything that is good about the team you contradict it. Which is fine in its way, but you can't then blame people for taking every comment you make as being one meant to argue with any good things they said - 90 out of 100 times they would be right.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 04:44 PM
Ok Bills sorry for not letting you all celebrate, I promise I'll let you do it next time my bad, I'm done with this conversation because this is not going anywhere, once again sorry.

Trader Joe
11-29-2012, 04:46 PM
I mean saying the Pacers are an elite defensive team doesn't mean, woohoo we are one of the best teams in the NBA. If anything it just emphasizes how putrid and pathetic the offense has been and still was in the Lakers game.

owl
11-29-2012, 04:53 PM
Both teams shot a horrible percentage last night, both teams missed a lot of open uncontested shots



The Pacers shooting a low percentage is normal for them against almost every team they play. For the Lakers that
is not normal and I think the Pacers defense is a very likely cause for it. The defense actually could be better
especially where creating turnovers is concerned.

BillS
11-29-2012, 04:54 PM
Ok Bills sorry for not letting you all celebrate, I promise I'll let you do it next time my bad, I'm done with this conversation because this is not going anywhere, once again sorry.

Did you read what I said or did it just not make sense? I really am trying to explain why your statements get people's backs up more than you clearly think they should have.

CJ Jones
11-29-2012, 05:03 PM
Hey guys you know how we would really win a bunch of games, go sign or trade for every under 6'3" scoring combo guard who becomes available and doesn't play a lick of defense.

Sounds good to me. Monta Ellis anybody?

BRushWithDeath
11-29-2012, 05:25 PM
I mean saying the Pacers are an elite defensive team doesn't mean, woohoo we are one of the best teams in the NBA. If anything it just emphasizes how putrid and pathetic the offense has been and still was in the Lakers game.

No question. We're the 2nd best defensive team in the league. And we are actually worse offensively than we are good defensively if that makes any sense.

Hicks
11-29-2012, 05:30 PM
Considering the current state of our defense/offense, all I can say is get well soon, Danny. He probably bumps us offensively from terrible to average, and that's enough.

rexnom
11-29-2012, 07:26 PM
So far the average ranking for the teams the Pacers have faced in both FG% and PPG is 16th. The Pacers have played 6 games against teams ranked in the top 10 for FG% and 4 games against teams in the top 10 of PPG. However this includes the Spurs twice.

On the other hand they also only have 6 games against teams in the bottom 10 in FG% and 4 in the bottom 10 of PPG.

So an average distribution of opponents, not too hard nor too easy.


BUT...only 4 times out of 15 have teams scored above their average PPG. The Spurs by 2 the other night, the Hornets by 13 in OT, the TWolves by 4 and the Kings by 4 in 2OT. SIX times they've held opponents to at least 5 points below their average, contrasted with only 1 team going for more than 5 points over their average...and that's in an OT game. They've held 4 opponents to more than 10 below their average PPG and 3 of those teams are top 11 FG% teams (Dallas, New York, LAL)


This suggests a non-normalized random distribution. We should expect an average set of opponents to yield about a 50/50 split of above/below their scoring average. Instead we have clear weighting toward many teams scoring far below their norm and only a few getting above their norm even a small amount.
Sample size simply too small to reject the null hypothesis of an average defense. But I appreciate the attempt. In fact, what I don't understand with this sabermetrics stuff is how, in any sport but baseball, you ever get small enough standard errors to make any inferences?