Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

    i personaly believe this is the biggest disadvantage to playing a 4 out 1 in offense. There just isnt anyone there to rebound inside when your on offense. Only one guy fighting against other bigs. I would have thought this was almost always the case

    As for this offense suiting foster, i dont think it does at all. He just doesnt have to offensive game to be the centre on his own, nor the shooting. I like Foster, i like the set of skills he has, but this offense, imo doesnt really have a place that makes him very effective!
    'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
    Animal Farm, by George Orwell

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Once again I hate using stats to prove a point. But Kegboy, these stats might surprise you, they even surprised me.

      I looked up the box scores from the 2003 series. Isiah's last season as coach.


      McCarty got 6 offensive rebounds the whole series. here are the offensive rebounding numbers.

      Game 1 - the Celts as a team got 9, McCarty got zero, the pacers got 11
      Game 2 - the Celts as a team got 9, McCarty got 3, pacers got 8
      Game 3 - Celts got 5, McCarty got 1, Pacers got 14
      Game 4 - Celts got 10, McCarty got 1, pacers got 5
      Game 5 - Celts got 9, McCarty got 0, Pacers got 17
      Game 6 - Celts got 11, McCarty got 1, Pacers got 24.


      Kegboy, you are probably remembering a few key ones that Walter got, but as far as overall he was a non-factor in the rebounding.
      I don't think it's simply Walter grabbing the rebounds, I think I recall a lot of kick-outs to a wide-open Walter. Prossibly a good portion of those passes came off of offensive rebounds.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        O'Brien has coached 3 full NBA seasons and his teams were last in the whole NBA in offensive rebounding for 2 seasons and 2nd worse in the other season.
        How did those teams rank the season before JOB arrived, and the season after he left?

        If those teams were better bafore AND after JOB, then that would go further toward proving your point about it being a function of the coach's philosophy.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

          Don't hate stats, all they are is someone counting up all the times some REAL THING actually happened. That's hella better than some fanboy saying "it SEEMED like they got a lot of their misses".


          They spread the floor, they don't setup post position, they chuck bombs. BTW, do you know what happens to long rebounds that the defense gets? That's right, FAST BREAKS!

          Weeeeeeeeee!

          I look forward to 40% of the missed FGs starting in the hands of opposing guards blowing past Quis or Tins at midcourt as they backpeddle in defense.

          Just have JO stay back on defense the entire game, at least then he can get a few blocks and charges taken. I mean seriously, JO is your best defender. How often is he going to be able to be involved in the defense if the possession starts on the run 15 feet ahead of him?

          A team with great 3pt shooting 1-3 players who also are your elite defenders is great for this system. A team with no 3pt shooting outside the SF spot perhaps that is especially weak in backcourt defense...doesn't seem like a good matchup.

          Hey, this is ON PAPER, you never know what the results will look like. But it's common sense to expect things to go more like they have than for them to suddenly be brand new and different.
          Originally posted by Einstein
          Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
          Hey, I think I just found the new 2007-08 Pacers slogan.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            They didn't take a lot of threes...\\Nobody other than korver and Iverson could shoot past 20 feet.
            Um, basically every player on the roster pushed toward a career high in attempts, or a high in 3PA/FGA rate. Korver took 75% of his total FGs from 3. The next year without JOB that dropped to around 55% and IIRC it fell to about 35% the season after that.

            Someone else already pointed out that their 1500 or whatever it is 3PAs ranked something in the top 40-50 all-time in team attempts. Sure it's way better than the #1 and #4 rankings of the two Boston teams, but to say they "didn't take a lot of 3s". BS. Their TEAM 3PA/FGA ratio was high by NBA standards, and more so given their low make rate as a team.

            Most teams that move into the 1400+ range of attempts actually shoot it closer to 40%, which is exactly why they love it. JOB teams shoot it regardless of ability, and that's part of the issue in question in all this.


            Jay was the one who mentioned it in the "Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes..." thread. The 3PA numbers were extensively discussed in that thread. Jay's last comment on page 4...
            Originally posted by Jay
            Let's not forget, JO'B's 76ers team was #42 all time in 3FGAs.

            They've been shooting the three-point shot for more than 25 seasons and there are substantially more than 20 NBA teams. Its not like JO'B's 76ers team was #420 all-time. They were still in the top 5% of teams all-time at attempting the three-point shot.

            He's coached three full seasons, and he's been #1, #4 and #42 all time in 3FGAs for the team.
            And here is my main Philly numbers posts from that thread. This includes a point about Korver's low FTAs in comparison to the FTAs a big 3pt shooter like Reggie Miller used to get.
            BTW, Philly DID NOT GET TO THE ECF. The lost in 5 to DET and 3 of those losses were double digit. They won 43 games. They "only" took 1453 3PAs at a 34.8% rate. ONLY ONE TEAM took more threes with a % lower than that, and that was Washington. The higher volume teams otherwise shot it better, and often MUCH better (PHX for example). And let me throw out the fact that they also gave up 99.9 PPG putting them around 18th I think, and they scored less than they allowed on the year despite being over .500.

            A big factor in limiting the 3PAs was Iverson. Iverson took 27% of Philly's FGAs in total. By limiting his 3PAs to 18.5% (his career avg is 17.5% 3PA/FGA) of his total shots he limited how many attempts the team had in total. Even still AI took 338 at a 30.8% rate. That was the MOST he had taken since his rookie year.

            Meanwhile the good part was Korver who dropped it at a 40.5% rate. No surprise there, he's a great shooter. But the problem is that 74.5% of his shots were from three. Yes, I said basically 75% of the time he shot the 3. The following year after JOB Korver shot only 57.5% of the time from 3 and his make rate went UP.

            Who else shot the 3 for that team - Iggy and Green. Iggy took 142 at a 33% rate, Green shot 105 at a 28.6% rate. The previous year Green had taken 40 less attempts and had a higher 3P% (about 2% better). Iggy lowered his 3PA/FGA ratio the following year and raised his 3P%, his ratio has gone from 26% with JOB to 23% to 15.6% last year.

            Consequently Iggy's FTAs per 100 minutes (easier to read this way) went from 7.8 with JOB to 18 last year. By cutting down his 3PA/FGA ratio he more than doubled the amount of free throws he gets.


            So I don't really see how Philly makes the case for JOB's offense. His guys still shot abnormally more 3PAs per FGA and outside of one shooting ace it wasn't very good. As a team they were still poor for a high volume 3 ball team, and worst of all their ace shooter did NOTHING but camp the 3.

            In fact let me make one other point about that Korver 75% thing. Reggie Miller only took 56% of his shots from 3 once, in 03-04 when he only took 594 shots total and let Ron, JO, Tins and Al be the offense. He was never above 50% any other time and in his prime from 87-94 he only went over 31% 1 time.

            Oh, and Reggie typically kept his FTA per 100 minutes in the 16-20 range despite being a 3pt ace. So that plan for Korver couldn't be more different than how Reggie went about being the greatest 3pt shooter ever, despite Kyle shooting it so well. That's been the JOB style up to this point, and he just made a comment about having DG and Shawne do nothing but shoot 3s in practice. Not hard to connect the dots here.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-15-2007, 04:40 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

              UB... so whats the point in getting O'Brien to coach the Pacers if he can't fix weaknesses but make them worse?
              "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                How did those teams rank the season before JOB arrived, and the season after he left?

                If those teams were better bafore AND after JOB, then that would go further toward proving your point about it being a function of the coach's philosophy.
                Difficult to do that for the Celtics, because OB coaches the previous season for about 50 games and then his final season he coached about 30 games.


                But the Sixers stats do prove my point.

                '04 - The Sixers were 15th best off rebounding team, .281
                '05 - Sixers during OB's only season were the 2nd worst OR team at 2.54
                '06 - Sixers improved to 8th worst OR team

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                  Usually you figure three point attempts generate more offensive boards due to long rebounds and such. That and more fast breaks for the opponent as others have stated. So would the low offensive board #'s for JOB be systemic or more of a coincidence? Interesting.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                    I really don't like the philosophy of us taking a lot of 3s. It's dumb and not hard to see.

                    However we will take a lot of 3s and that means long offensive rebounds.

                    But I think the reason OBs teams don't rebound well on offense is he doesn't want to give up fast break points.

                    I think the more interesting thing would be to see how many fast break points his teams, and the Pacers when Dick Harter was Bird's assistant, gave up. To me we are sacraficing one for the other.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                      Originally posted by Smashed_Potato View Post
                      UB... so whats the point in getting O'Brien to coach the Pacers if he can't fix weaknesses but make them worse?
                      well he fixes a few of the problems ... just not offensive rebounds. he likes to focus on defense w/ harter which was quite necessary. also making the offense a little more life-like and less predictable (jacking up threes at random times would certainly make it more interesting to watch).

                      there are two big problems still with the JO'B hire: we lack amazing three point shooters and the offensive rebounding.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                        Originally posted by rommie View Post
                        I really don't like the philosophy of us taking a lot of 3s. It's dumb and not hard to see.

                        However we will take a lot of 3s and that means long offensive rebounds.

                        But I think the reason OBs teams don't rebound well on offense is he doesn't want to give up fast break points.

                        I think the more interesting thing would be to see how many fast break points his teams, and the Pacers when Dick Harter was Bird's assistant, gave up. To me we are sacraficing one for the other.
                        Interesting point. That could very well be considering his defensive mindset.

                        I will say that this is a prime reason to keep and play Foster. A 34% 3pt shot isn't all that great, but if you get a 2nd look after those misses you end up with a 56% completion rate per possession (you hit 34% of the 66% misses you rebound) without getting a 3rd chance if you miss the 2nd.

                        That would put you at 60% OR rate which is not obtainable (you get all of the original 66% misses, you then lose all of the 66% 2nd chances which only happen 44% of the time roughly, due to there being some made shots too).

                        Let's say they can get it to 30% OR rate with a 34% 3P%. This sounds a bit confusing but I simplified it a little. Let's say they still NEVER get a 3rd rebound (after a 2nd miss that is), to be a 30% OR team they'd have to get 38% of the first misses if they were shooting 34%.

                        That gives them a make rate per trip of 42.5%, and at a 1.5 times payoff (3 points instead of 2) you are scoring at an adjusted rate of nearly 64%.

                        The good news is that if I make that initial rebound rate 30% it drops the overall OR rate to 25%, but that still leaves them with an adjusted make rate of 61%, it doesn't really hurt them that much.

                        A concern here is Points per Shot because 3pt shooting teams don't draw many free throws. As pointed out Korver taking 75% of his shots from 3 was only going to the line about 6 times every 100 FGAs.

                        Without FTs this 25% OR with 34% shooting comes out to a PPS of 1.02 which is freaking horrible. 122 points out of every 120 shots roughly. If I'm nice and assume a better rate than Korver despite only taking 3s, say 10 FTAs per 100 FGAs, and give it a 75% FT rate, you get the points up to a still terrible 1.095 PPS. Ugh.

                        Not enough FTAs per game (12 basically), and that's due to a 100% 3PAs approach which is not what they will do of course. This is just a jumping off point on how well the 3pt approach works, looking at the strategy of getting extra bang per attempt.

                        BTW, let's say the team still rebounds at 25% but makes 36% of it's 3s. Now you are at a 1.15 PPS after FTAs are added (at the low 10% of FGAs rate that 3pt shots get roughly). Move it to 38% and you are at 1.215 which is at the lower end but is at least in the ballpark.


                        To validate the low FTA expectation I looked at every team last year by 3PA/FGA rate and how many FTAs they got. 2 of the 3 FEWEST FTA teams were PHX and HOU, and they were the top 2 highest 3PA/FGA rate teams in the NBA (both at roughly 29% of their shots from 3). The Warriors were 3rd at 28% and fell mid-pack in FTAs per.

                        However of the 6 teams with a 17% 3PA/FGA rate or lower, 4 of them were in the top 10 in FTAs per game.

                        There is good news. While PPS tended to go with points scored, so did a higher 3PA/FGA rate. So a chucking team can score a lot of points which makes it sound like decent idea after all. But then you see the other end of the court and teams with the highest 3/FG ratios tended to be the teams giving up 100 points per game. Houston and SA are the main exceptions to that.


                        Right now then I guess the team we hope the Pacers most emulate is Houston. Of course they have Yao and while they were one of the worst offensive rebound % teams last year they led the league in defensive rebounding %. Not sure the Pacers can defend and deny offensive rebounds as well as Houston. But it does make the "Houston has 5 PGs" a more interesting discussion.

                        BTW, Houston shot the 3 at a 37% pace and SA shot it at 38%. It's a great weapon but you can't get away with shooting it like the Pacers have in recent years.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                          Originally posted by rommie View Post
                          .

                          But I think the reason OBs teams don't rebound well on offense is he doesn't want to give up fast break points.

                          I think the more interesting thing would be to see how many fast break points his teams, and the Pacers when Dick Harter was Bird's assistant, gave up. To me we are sacraficing one for the other.


                          That is exactly right. The reason why Ob's teams don't get a lot of OR's is because of wanting to get back on defense. Not sure why almost everyone in this thread is fixating on the number of threes being taken and the long rebound thing. Getting back on defense will be emphasized, and another reason why we won't O rebound well is because of the position of our offensive players. 4 of them will be far away from the basket, with likely only one post up player inside, the middle will be much more open.

                          A big reason why Jerry Sloans teams offensive rebound well (So Do Phil Jackson teams) is because of the positioning of the offensive players and the ballanced attack that includes a lot of player and ball movement.

                          If you watch the Spurs play the Suns - it is incredible how well the Spurs stop the Suns fastbreak - but it isn't by accident and it certainly isn't because they get offensive rebounds - it is because they sprint back on defense and sacrifice offensive rebounding almost entirely. As soon as the Spurs take a shot, the Spurs players turn into defenders, looking to match up and get back.


                          Going off on a tangent a little bit. The style of defense the Pacers will play next season is very different from what the Pacers played the last time Dick Harter was a Pacers assistant. In Boston and Philly and I think partially because of the new zone rules and perhaps because of Jim O'Brien's influence, Harter changed his defense. In fact I commented at the time that the Celtics more than any other team took advantage of the new zone rules. Harter's defense floods the strong side of the ball, blitzes pick and rolls, stops penetration as soon as it starts at all costs, and swarms the low post.

                          We won't see poor Troy Murphy trying to defend Sheed all alone on an island like we did last season. We won't see point guard after point guard getting all the way to the basket where we can only hope and pray JO blocks the shot - that penetration will be stopped well before he gets to JO. Teams will beat us with open shots on the weak side and we will force teams role players to hit shots. Smart, patient and very good passing teams will give us fits. Our defense will get strung out as we run around trying to get to the weakside shooters. But teams that don't pass well or teams that have only 2 or 3 good offensive players on the court - will struggle against our defense

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                            Great Post Seth ... i dread to think how long that took!

                            Very interesting numbers, as far as i can tell you are concluding that PPS from 3pt shots are less than the points PPS from 2 point range.

                            Your post has got me thinking about 3pt shooting and points scored in relation ... the first thing that struck me when i had a look through some stats, in games the pacers won last year we shot 37% from 3 pt ... but in games we lost we shot 32.8% from 3 .... in those wins we had 17.5 3pt attempts per game and 16.5 attempts in loses! .... Shot attempts per game was the same ... 80 attempts per game .... so in our wins we had 1.28 points per attempt but in loses 1.13 points per attempt ...We also shot 5 % better in wins (46%/41%) ... in wins we had just 2 extra Free Throw attempts

                            So between our wins and loses there was very little difference between 3pt attempts or field goal attempts or even Free Throw attempts ... the main difference was in our %shooting both from 3pt and from normal Field Goals ...

                            Next question is to ask why? .... did we simply get hot in those games, or did we get better shots, more open shots ....

                            There was a Large difference in Transition baskets ... this is most likely fueled by the defence ... in wins we had on asverage 2 extra Steels and 1.3 extra blocks per game ... we also averaged 4 more assists which would imply that our ball movement got us better shots...

                            The problem is, we cant really get definitive results and statistics due to other factors ... e.g. the trade, injuries etc. .... still makes for interesting discussion!


                            EDIT: Sorry having read UBs post i realise this is also of the topic of rebounding! ...I appoligise!

                            Just to add rebounding in there ... Last year in wins we averaged 1.5 extra offensive boards and just under 5 extra boards per game ... interestingly though, they did not translate into aditional shot attempts at all!
                            Last edited by The Hustler; 07-16-2007, 08:38 AM.
                            'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
                            Animal Farm, by George Orwell

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                              A concern here is Points per Shot
                              I think I would be more concerned with points per possession than points per shot.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers will be a worse offensive rebounding team under Jim O'Brien

                                Jimmy obviously never read this thread:

                                http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers.html

                                Question for Jim O'Brien | Sept. 7, 2007


                                Q. I have never felt we have had great rebounding teams but the last few years seem to be worse than usual. Do you have any thoughts on how you might go about helping this area? (From Dave in Logansport, Ind.)
                                A. I'd be very shocked if we weren't one of the better rebounding teams in the league. I think we're going to be long, we're going to be big at the wing spots, Jermaine's a strong rebounder, Ike Diogu's strong, Foster's strong. I think we can be a real factor on the offensive glass and we will not take too kindly to giving up second shots. It's always a point of emphasis and I think we're positioned to be a pretty darned good rebounding team.
                                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X