The Pacers enter the 2008-09 season with a scent of new hope.
They were 36-46 last year with Jermaine O’Neal and Jamaal Tinsley missing a significant chunk of time. After falling only one game out of the playoffs while playing shorthanded, should Pacer fans assume that the offseason upgrades at point and on the perimeter will translate into a winning record and a playoff berth?
Let's peel the onion and the 2007-2008 season to find out.
Pacers were 19-23 (.452) with O’Neal in the lineup, and 17-23 (.425) without him. They were 13-20 (.394) prior to his injury-enforced absence with him, and 6-3 after his return when he averaged 7.2 points and 4.8 rebounds in 19.2 minutes.
They were 16-23 (.410) with Tinsley in the lineup, and a slightly better 20-23 (.465) without him.
Indiana was 10-16 (.385) with both Jermaine and Jamaal in the lineup, 11-16 (.407) with neither player in the lineup, and 15-14 when just one or the other played.
When J.O. played, but Tinsley did not, the Pacers were 9-7 (.563), and that included their 6-3 stretch to end the season. Prior to O’Neal's injury, the Pacers were 3-4 (.429) with just Jermaine and no Jamaal.
When Tinsley played and O’Neal did not, the Pacers were 6-7 (.462).
There's little doubt that there was a stretch during which this team was unrelentingly bad. In January and February, the Pacers were a combined 8-19 (.296). Thirteen of those games were played with both Jermaine and Jamaal out of the lineup, and Indiana was 4-9 (.308) in those games.
The Pacers were 1-2 (.333) in that stretch when both played, 2-2 (.500) when just O’Neal played, and 1-6 (.143) when Tinsley, and not Jermaine, was in the lineup. They were 5-7 against losing teams in that period, 2-1 against teams at .500, and a horrific 1-11 (.083) against winning teams.
Outside of those two months, the Pacers were 28-27 (.509). That includes a 7-17 (.292) record against winning teams, 1-2 against .500 teams, and 20-8 (.714) against losing teams. Over the full season, Indiana was 3-3 against .500 teams, 25-15 (.625) against losing teams, and a woeful 8-28 (.222) against winning teams.
So, how important were Jermaine and Jamaal to last year's record?
When both played, the team was worse than it's overall record at 10-16, but they played a higher percentage of those games against teams with winning records (54% vs. 51%), were 3-11 against teams .500 or better, and 7-5 against losing teams.
When neither played the team was slightly more successful than when both played, with a record of 11-16. However, only 48% (13) of those games were played against winning teams, and they lost eleven of those thirteen.
O’Neal’s record, 9-7, when playing without Tinsley is slightly skewed because eleven of those sixteen games were played against losing teams. The Pacers won eight of them, but were only victorious once in five tries against winning teams.
Tinsley's record, 6-7, when playing without O’Neal is a little misleading because ten of the thirteen games were against winning teams. The Pacers were 5-5 in those games. Oddly, they were only 1-2 against losing teams.
It appears that Jermaine and Jamaal, or just Jamaal by himself, made the Pacers more competitive against the better teams. It also appears as though the two together didn't translate into wins on the court, or a significant difference.
The team was 16-20 (.444) when Tinsley started. They were 6-15 (.286) when Travis Diener started at the point, leaving them at 14-11 when "somebody else" started. That should bode well for the team this season since "somebody else" (T.J. Ford or Jarrett Jack) should be handling the starts.
In looking at the opponent splits, there are some alarming facts that surface.
The initial review of the splits against winning teams, .500 teams, and losing teams seems to indicate that the Pacers were a mediocre team that beat the teams they should, but were defenseless -- in more ways than one -- against good teams. However, there are some results that could be cause for concern in Indiana.
The Pacers were 13-10 (.565) in March and April last year. That's a pretty positive trend, right?
Not so fast. A closer look shows that Indiana was 13-2 against losing teams and 0-8 against winning teams during that stretch. Of those wins against losing teams, only the victories over Philly and Atlanta could be considered meaningful to the opponent.
While that does take the luster off last year's finish, it also makes something else pop – Indiana’s mark against losing teams heading into March. Their record, 25-15, looks good overall, but if you remove the late season mark (13-2), where motivation and effort could be questioned, the Pacers were 12-13 against losing teams prior to March.
So, while I believe that the Pacers have improved themselves with their offseason moves, it's appears it's possible that those transactions won't necessarily translate into more wins. Or, more to the point, that the 36-win figure from last year could arguably have been inflated by some late season "differences in priorities" between the Pacers and the teams they played.
They were 36-46 last year with Jermaine O’Neal and Jamaal Tinsley missing a significant chunk of time. After falling only one game out of the playoffs while playing shorthanded, should Pacer fans assume that the offseason upgrades at point and on the perimeter will translate into a winning record and a playoff berth?
Let's peel the onion and the 2007-2008 season to find out.
Pacers were 19-23 (.452) with O’Neal in the lineup, and 17-23 (.425) without him. They were 13-20 (.394) prior to his injury-enforced absence with him, and 6-3 after his return when he averaged 7.2 points and 4.8 rebounds in 19.2 minutes.
They were 16-23 (.410) with Tinsley in the lineup, and a slightly better 20-23 (.465) without him.
Indiana was 10-16 (.385) with both Jermaine and Jamaal in the lineup, 11-16 (.407) with neither player in the lineup, and 15-14 when just one or the other played.
When J.O. played, but Tinsley did not, the Pacers were 9-7 (.563), and that included their 6-3 stretch to end the season. Prior to O’Neal's injury, the Pacers were 3-4 (.429) with just Jermaine and no Jamaal.
When Tinsley played and O’Neal did not, the Pacers were 6-7 (.462).
There's little doubt that there was a stretch during which this team was unrelentingly bad. In January and February, the Pacers were a combined 8-19 (.296). Thirteen of those games were played with both Jermaine and Jamaal out of the lineup, and Indiana was 4-9 (.308) in those games.
The Pacers were 1-2 (.333) in that stretch when both played, 2-2 (.500) when just O’Neal played, and 1-6 (.143) when Tinsley, and not Jermaine, was in the lineup. They were 5-7 against losing teams in that period, 2-1 against teams at .500, and a horrific 1-11 (.083) against winning teams.
Outside of those two months, the Pacers were 28-27 (.509). That includes a 7-17 (.292) record against winning teams, 1-2 against .500 teams, and 20-8 (.714) against losing teams. Over the full season, Indiana was 3-3 against .500 teams, 25-15 (.625) against losing teams, and a woeful 8-28 (.222) against winning teams.
So, how important were Jermaine and Jamaal to last year's record?
When both played, the team was worse than it's overall record at 10-16, but they played a higher percentage of those games against teams with winning records (54% vs. 51%), were 3-11 against teams .500 or better, and 7-5 against losing teams.
When neither played the team was slightly more successful than when both played, with a record of 11-16. However, only 48% (13) of those games were played against winning teams, and they lost eleven of those thirteen.
O’Neal’s record, 9-7, when playing without Tinsley is slightly skewed because eleven of those sixteen games were played against losing teams. The Pacers won eight of them, but were only victorious once in five tries against winning teams.
Tinsley's record, 6-7, when playing without O’Neal is a little misleading because ten of the thirteen games were against winning teams. The Pacers were 5-5 in those games. Oddly, they were only 1-2 against losing teams.
It appears that Jermaine and Jamaal, or just Jamaal by himself, made the Pacers more competitive against the better teams. It also appears as though the two together didn't translate into wins on the court, or a significant difference.
The team was 16-20 (.444) when Tinsley started. They were 6-15 (.286) when Travis Diener started at the point, leaving them at 14-11 when "somebody else" started. That should bode well for the team this season since "somebody else" (T.J. Ford or Jarrett Jack) should be handling the starts.
In looking at the opponent splits, there are some alarming facts that surface.
The initial review of the splits against winning teams, .500 teams, and losing teams seems to indicate that the Pacers were a mediocre team that beat the teams they should, but were defenseless -- in more ways than one -- against good teams. However, there are some results that could be cause for concern in Indiana.
The Pacers were 13-10 (.565) in March and April last year. That's a pretty positive trend, right?
Not so fast. A closer look shows that Indiana was 13-2 against losing teams and 0-8 against winning teams during that stretch. Of those wins against losing teams, only the victories over Philly and Atlanta could be considered meaningful to the opponent.
While that does take the luster off last year's finish, it also makes something else pop – Indiana’s mark against losing teams heading into March. Their record, 25-15, looks good overall, but if you remove the late season mark (13-2), where motivation and effort could be questioned, the Pacers were 12-13 against losing teams prior to March.
So, while I believe that the Pacers have improved themselves with their offseason moves, it's appears it's possible that those transactions won't necessarily translate into more wins. Or, more to the point, that the 36-win figure from last year could arguably have been inflated by some late season "differences in priorities" between the Pacers and the teams they played.
Comment