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

Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

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

  • #16
    Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

    Pecks right there's no one to touch DD or McKey. I'd put Derrick in the tops in the league in his prime. Those type players aren't on the current team. They made up for a bunch of mistakes.

    However, I agree with Bird that this team's players can be better defensively. Mullins had horrible foot speed by the time he got here and although Jalen was able, he wasn't the most interested party in playing D.

    I think this team has to get smarter defensively. It's possible. Mully was horribly slow footed, but he still had quick hands and would swipe at the ball. Jalen would still try to get a hand in the shooters face (smartly Carlise tracked this occurence so it became a stat Jalen could grasp, imo.) Mark was slow footed, but clever/smart defensively (playing far enough off his guy to not be a turnstlye)

    It goes back to having guys who can guard their position on most nights, straight up, imo. It's helpful that Danny and BRush can (Marquis could too).

    Jarret Jack can mostly.

    TJ can but has to apply his quickness advantage to offset the size differential many nights.

    Roy can when it's a true center, but not on a Bosh or those PFs playing Center in opposing small ball. Roy has to get so good in the low post he doesn't loose minutes in those situtations. Murphy is much improved... I'll just leave it at that.

    Jeff is good to very valuable according to match ups.

    This will sound strange, but I think the "scheme" they had this year was interesting because I think it was designed with having Dunleavy and Murphy on the court at the same time, which I think it would have been the best option if that was the case. If you throw in the very poor, imo, point guard defense 2 seasons ago, this rotational scheme made sense.

    However, I'd advocate for a more traditional defense that emphasizes individual accountability versus a multiple rotational scheme. A traditional defense allows players to have the mano e mano challenge and accountability of defending their guy. I'm not saying don't help if a guy gets beat, I'm saying that if you have a team that knows you are going to have to rotate like they currently do, you'll get open looks if you pass crisply and show patience. To me the current system is almost a zone or it can be attacked that way and there's a reason zones aren't consistently sucessful in the NBA, players are too good to not hit open shots. Therein lies the fault.

    In summary, I think that this year's team even though worse defensively as a group are better defenders individually and should be given a chance to perform in that type of defense. I think if the scheme Obie used this year would have been used the previous year it would have fit. I think the mistake was to not let the guy guard straight up more this year, especially when they didn't have to overemphasize covering up for the PF and SG position.

    We'll see how next year goes. I think both Obie and Bird are right though. The current players need to be in a position to play better D, but it sure wouldn't hurt to have some more horses out there to do it too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

      I am very, very glad to hear these things from Bird. I know that Gnome has been worried that JOB would be prematurely extended, but I've felt that there wasn't a legit reason to extend him, and am glad to see Bird agrees with me.

      Larry is slowly winning me over.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
        I had to chance to go to several live games this year and the first thing I noticed about the Pacers was not the lack of defense but the lack of team speed. Are team speed and defense a direct correlation?
        When the team plays the style that we do under O'Brien, yes. He expects players to both get to the offensive end of the floor and shoot quickly as often as possible. Failing that, he expects slashing drives by guards / wings to create the offense, leaving the team primarily in and around the paint. In that we often beat the opponents perimeter defenders and leave them behind us on our offensive end, failures to finish wind up in missed shots and turnovers created in the paint (our infamous drive, jump in the air, and find nowhere to go). As a result, the opposition often has their guards / wings in position to simply run down the floor and score with less resistance than they ordinarily would. A much speedier team could make up for this by being able to get back on defense faster than the opponents can get down the floor on offense, but is probably not realistic to expect without a complete roster overhaul, which is nearly impossible due to the team's current economic crunch.

        My guess is that some opposing coaches simply choose to allow our offensive penetrations, knowing the significant positional advantage they have both defensively (again, our pgs having nowhere to go after penetration) and offensively as a result.

        Bird had the philosophy, as he now has reiterated, that he would make even the relatively slow teams he had the best he could defensively, with offense and fast breaks being created by defensive pressure.

        While Bird is supporting O'Brien as a teacher, he seems to be acknowledging that our tactics need to shift to a defense first mentality, while knowing that the team is very capable of scoring in bunches. A very encouraging development, if true.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          P
          I think this team has to get smarter defensively. It's possible. Mully was horribly slow footed, but he still had quick hands and would swipe at the ball. Jalen would still try to get a hand in the shooters face (smartly Carlise tracked this occurence so it became a stat Jalen could grasp, imo.) Mark was slow footed, but clever/smart defensively (playing far enough off his guy to not be a turnstlye)
          Do you see Dun playing defense like Mully?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

            It's important to keep in mind that when Bird said that he thought the players could do better, the guy he used as an example was Danny. Now, it's clear that neither Bird nor O'Brien are looking to upgrade or replace Danny.

            The thoughts that this team's personnel is not built to be a good defensive team that can do a lot in the playoffs (O'Brien), and that this team can play better defense than they did (Bird) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I consider them both to be absolutely true.

            My sense is that Bird is relatively pleased with O'Brien, but believes that he needs to simplify the defense. This is something that even O'Brien's supporters have espoused throughout the year.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
              Do you see Dun playing defense like Mully?
              No, not the Pacers Mully. He was, to me, an offensive role player in his days here and really seemed to be used in limited time as a sniper. I'm just pulling this all from memory, I haven't looked up his numbers while here.

              Dunleavy is an exceptional team defender, I think. I really think he's great a taking charges, which often can have the same effect as blocking shots and making penetrators think twice about going to the bucket.

              However, Dun can't guard opposing startign two's or starting three's well enough, imo. And he can't punish a guy who's guarding him who is smaller, so you can effectively guard him with a Ben Gordon type. I don't think Dun is horrible defensively, but it is something I think you have to cover for as a team, if his match up is against any type of quickness. Now he can work guys off of screens on the other end and make a difference offensively that has a huge impact.

              With Dun, he needs to be a sixth man. It minimizes his weaknesses (individual defense) and accentuates his strengths (movement on offense, taking charges, scores in bunches, very good passer, good ball handler for his size, high Bball IQ). I could see him as 6th man of the year in the NBA. I also don't think if he's your starting two guard and primary option there that you can have a playoff caliber team.

              I guess looking at BRush and Dunleavy. If they were matched up on opposite teams against each other, I'd take BRush almost everytime because I know he'd be able to guard Dunleavy somewhat, but I don't feel like Dunleavy could keep up with BRush, much at all.

              Just my opinion, not hating on Dunleavy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                This will sound strange, but I think the "scheme" they had this year was interesting because I think it was designed with having Dunleavy and Murphy on the court at the same time, which I think it would have been the best option if that was the case. If you throw in the very poor, imo, point guard defense 2 seasons ago, this rotational scheme made sense.

                However, I'd advocate for a more traditional defense that emphasizes individual accountability versus a multiple rotational scheme. A traditional defense allows players to have the mano e mano challenge and accountability of defending their guy. I'm not saying don't help if a guy gets beat, I'm saying that if you have a team that knows you are going to have to rotate like they currently do, you'll get open looks if you pass crisply and show patience. To me the current system is almost a zone or it can be attacked that way and there's a reason zones aren't consistently sucessful in the NBA, players are too good to not hit open shots. Therein lies the fault.
                I think your on to something here. I have often wondered if going to a more straight up defense might not be such a bad idea. I think Jack/Rush/Granger can hold their own pretty well on the perimeter. Too often we give up those wide open threes because guys don't rotate fast enough when the other team makes the extra pass.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                  I have stated this before, but I think it fits into this thread, so let me do so again.

                  At first glance my next sentence might not make any sense. I think the Pacers offensive style/system hurts the Pacers' defensive effectiveness much more so than the actual defensive style/system.

                  So changing to a more straight up man to man IMO isn't going to help that much if the Pacers keep playing the fast paced offense. It is difficult to play a hectic style offensively then expect your players to go to the other end and dig in defensively and play together with patience. I just have never seen it done well in the NBA. I suppose someone might point to the Nets Finals teams of '02 and '03 as teams that were good on defense and yet played a fast style on offense. OK, maybe, but so much was Jason Kidd offensively and plus the nets had some really good defenders at the time and players who were great runners and finishers.

                  But most of the best defensive teams play a controlled (to varying degrees) style of offense. And that isn't just by accident, it is on purpose.

                  So my contention is the Pacers will never be a great defensive team playing this style of offense. Can they become better? - of course. Will some tweaks to the defensive system help? - yes. Will a couple of really good defenders help? - yes. But we won't become the Cavs, Celtics, or Spurs playing this style of offense
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-22-2009, 11:43 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                    I think your on to something here. I have often wondered if going to a more straight up defense might not be such a bad idea. I think Jack/Rush/Granger can hold their own pretty well on the perimeter. Too often we give up those wide open threes because guys don't rotate fast enough when the other team makes the extra pass.
                    What I don't like is that Roy, Brandon, and McBob have spent a whole season learning the current scheme and to go back now puts them in a position a relearning how to play defense. Hopefully, if they went back to a traditional defense that these players understand the art of a regular defense enough that it's not a huge transition.

                    For example, the current scheme calls for one of the front court players to leave his assigned man and take the other bigman if he flashes to the high post or in his area. To me, this is counter intuitive to how you would play regular man to man defense. So if Roy finds himself having to think through what needs to be done instead of just reacting, it becomes a lay up.

                    Same with a perimeter player who has to rotate out of the weak side half zone and then recover to the opposite corner. In a traditional defense you go about 2 steps not quite as far compared to what they've been doing in Obies defense.

                    I'm just saying I hope it's not a matter of unlearning what they've been doing because that will almost be like starting over with the young fellas and that's a shame, since if they are slow to "get it" then it would effect their performance, but also probably their minutes.

                    One a side note. I had assumed until yesterday that Harter was a big part of the type of defense they played this year. I don't know which is more concerning that he maybe wasn't or the Bird doesn't even know for sure.

                    I agree with Buck that Harter at his age probably can't be the defensive coordinator like he was for Bird, but you can still utilize his wisdom on the matter. Maybe they are and Bird just doesn't realize it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I have stated this before, but I think it fits into this thread, so let me do so again.

                      At first glance my next sentence might not make any sense. I think the Pacers offensive style/system hurts the Pacers' defensive effectiveness much more so than the actual defensive style/system.

                      So changing to a more straight up man to man IMO isn't going to help that much if the Pacers keep playing the fast paced offense. It is difficult to play a hectic style offensively then expect your players to go to the other end and dig in defensively and play together with patience. I just have never seen it done well in the NBA. I suppose someone might point to the Nets Finals teams of '02 and '03 as teams that were good on defense and yet played a fast style on offense. OK, maybe, but so much was Jason Kidd offensively and plus the nets had some really good defenders at the time and players who were great runners and finishers.

                      But most of the best defensive teams play a controlled (to varying degrees) style of offense. And that isn't just by accident, it is on purpose.

                      So my contention is the Pacers will never be a great defensive team playing this style of offense. Can they become better? - of course. Will some tweaks to the defensive system help? - yes. Will a couple of really good defenders help? - yes. But we won't become the Cavs, Celtics, or Spurs playing this style of offense
                      I'd agree if we were talking about the offensive style of two seasons ago where you'd have guys chucking up 3s 4 seconds in to a shot clock, but I think this year was a little more deliberate or trended that way at times. I'm not saying I disagree, but I think it's possible to play intensely defensively and under control/purposefully offensively even though you are play at an excellerated pace.

                      Now I think you have to have a rotation that allows it, not the 7 guy rotation at the end of the year. I also think you are right that if you take alot of 3s and there are long rebounds that lead to fast breaks or the like that you can't set your defense.

                      I see your point, though, I'm just gunshy after some of the Carlise teams that played at a ridiculously slow pace that never allowed for an easy basket on offense.

                      Maybe the answer is somewhere inbetween.

                      I do believe if you play up and down all season and you get into a lock down/half court style game in the playoffs, you are screwed.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        One a side note. I had assumed until yesterday that Harter was a big part of the type of defense they played this year. I don't know which is more concerning that he maybe wasn't or the Bird doesn't even know for sure.

                        I agree with Buck that Harter at his age probably can't be the defensive coordinator like he was for Bird, but you can still utilize his wisdom on the matter. Maybe they are and Bird just doesn't realize it.
                        Reading between the lines of what O'Brien has said (mainly on his radio show) and then just adding a little bit of what I see during the games - I think Harter is more of a consultant at this point in his career. I take that to mean OB relies on Harter in some of the same ways he does jack ramsey (who JOB talks with almost everyday) for advise - as opposed to giving Dick full reins of the defens elike Mike Brown had it when he was here.

                        I do know that this defense is the same that JOB ran in Boston and Philly - so I can't imagine back then (when Harter was more active) that JOB would run a defense that Harter didn't approve of.

                        One thing has changed since 2000 - allowing zones has changed the way you can play defense - and no team plays the strictly 1 on 1 style the pacers did 1998-2000 - and you wouldn't want to play that style now - it is out of date as a whole package.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          At first glance my next sentence might not make any sense. I think the Pacers offensive style/system hurts the Pacers' defensive effectiveness much more so than the actual defensive style/system.
                          I really think JOB has just been playing this team to its strengths. Clearly, it's not a team full of guys who are strong defensively.

                          On the offensive side of the ball, is there a reliable post up threat who can reliably draw double teams? No.

                          Are there guys who can penetrate, create for others and finish inside? Not really. TJ can get to the rim, but he's a poor finisher in traffic and often out of control.

                          Are there guys who are adept at the pick and roll? Not really. Murphy can run a pick and pop, but he's not a guy who's going to roll towards the basket nearly as much.

                          Are there any shooters with the skills and stamina to move off the ball and run through screens like Rip Hamilton for an entire game? No.

                          Basically, I think the Pacers would be a much poorer offensive team in the halfcourt than in their current style. With their personnel, it's even less suited for halfcourt than it is run and gun. I think JOB's idea has been simply to get a shot off quickly before the defense can set up. I think without guys with clear offensive strenghts in the halfcourt, the Pacers would just be bogged down offensively and much easier to defend.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            As much as I like and respect Dick Harter, he isn't capable of doing what he did from 1998 - 2000. he's 79 years old. If you have seen him on the bench or in postgame game interviews and remember the way he was 5-10 years ago you would know - the man is getting old there is no other way to say it. So I have no idea what Bird and karavitz are talking about. And yes as others have mentioned in this thread - Harter was brought in by O'Brien - they coached together in Boston and in Philly. And Harter was out of the league when OB wasn't coaching.

                            On the question who is correct Bird or JOB. Obvously both are. Yes this current team can play better defense - but JOB is correct that getting some better athletes would really help. Yes the 1998-2000 team wasn't the quickest NBA team, but they were an extremely smart, and veteran group - who trusted each other 100%. So for Bird to compare the two teams I think is unfair
                            We don't have one player today as good as Dale defensively. Not even close. We don't have a guard as good as Travis Best defensively. AD is arguably better than any defender we have now. I guess McKey was injured a lot, but, even so, I'm not buying this line of thought that Bird was dealing with a similar roster of untalented defenders.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                              Ok, we are asking Harter to TEACH the defense, not PLAY it for us, right? I don't think his age has much to do with our ineffectiveness on D. I agree that we need at least one more defensive ace on this squad. Actually, we had a chance to grab the 2nd coming of McKey (Tayshaun Prince), but Isaiah opted for the next Jordan (Fred Jones) instead. But I think we're not athletic enough on D, although I feel BRush will be a top flight defender next season.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                                There's really only one problem with our defense: Fouls. We foul way too much. We gave up the 2nd most free throws in the NBA for the 2nd consecutive year. The free throws and the pace of our offense completely explain the 106 ppg. In every other defensive category we're middle of the pack or better.

                                We gave up 5 more free throws per game than the average NBA team. We gave up 10 more free throws a game than the Spurs who allowed the fewest. When you consider that most NBA teams shoot around 75+% on free throws, that's about 3.75 points we give up each game. Our point differential was only -1.1. If we give up 3.7 less points, we're at +2.6 ppg differential. That would have been the 10th best in the NBA and 4th best in the East.

                                I know that a ton of factors go into opponent free throw attempts, but if O'Brien can simply find a way to make us average in this category, we'll be a surefire playoff team with an outside shot at home court for a first round series.

                                I remember that this was the same problem we had last year. Supposedly improved PG defense was going to help significantly, but apparently that didn't really happen this season.
                                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                                - Salman Rushdie

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X