So, was it a fluke?
So, was it a fluke?
I don't think 5 straight wins in the NBA can be considered a fluke!?!
Ask the New Jersey Nets.
Fluke may not be the right word...aberration, perhaps?
Well, FWIW, the starting line-up that won games 4,5,6 and 8 is the same starting line-up for losses in games 9, 10, and 11.
So...your basic streak, I guess. They're all a fluke statistically.
Now, if we were the Cavs (heaven forbid), or Phoenix, then 6 or 7 in a row would be less flukey. We're not that level of a team, yet.
[~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!
Not sure fluke is the right word. every win counts.
But I do not believe for one minute that the 5-game streak shows us that if and only if we went back to the lineup we would be a good team or in any way continue on a winning streak.
Every team goes through stretches where they play well and then play bad.
At no time during that 5 game streak would the Pacers have won in Utah, for example
Fun fact: This season we are 1-9 with Troy Murphy. 5-1 without him.
basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.
It's hard to say for sure. The team was more athletic prior to Murph's return, which gave us an edge on the defensive end and on the fast break. Granger did a good job with his assignments when he was put at the 4-spot and certainly was better defensively than Murph. We really didn't possess many defensive liabilities during that stretch of games. With that said, the same team managed to blow a lead and lose against the Knicks, but one could argue that we were on the tail end of a back-to-back facing a fresher team. Despite that loss, I personally think our team was better during that time.
Last edited by Doddage; 12-04-2009 at 10:34 PM.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of the guy, but we are putting way too much blame on Murphy here people. We haven't won a game with Dunleavy either.
Murphy doesn't deserve any blame though. The person putting him on the floor is the problem.
The fact Murph has the worst season plus/minus of the year should get the coach's attention, particular since the Pacers post it on their website...AND JOb stresses Jeff's great plus/minus...yet says nary a word about Murph's terrible one.
Ay'm kinda sorry ta haffta be givin' an answer ta this question naow, an accounta I can't really give ya a straight answer while Ay'm talkin' like a Minnesowtan. But what I'd like ta say about dose five wins inna row bein' a fluke er not is that the word 'fluke' don't really have any meaning.
Dere are summa you young fellers taht's grown up lisnina common taters on the radio that thinks what dey got to say is maybe more important dan what it really is, if ya know what I mean. What I mean is, dey can make a prediction, and den dey ack like the thing is all decided right then and if whaqt dey said was gonna happen turn awt ta happen t' other way round that somebody made some kinda mistake insteada that they was wrong abowt the prediction.
So anyway, abowt the Pacers and their five wins in a row, I think there's no fluke to it, 'cause it happened. See what I mean?
Thinkin' it was a fluke means ya got some sort of a little bit of a defect in yer thinkin' process. What I mean is, if a team is gonna finish the season with a .250 average, it means the team is gonna go out dere and win 20 games over de course of the whole season. They're gonna lose abowt 62 games in there, too.
But what it don't mean is that dere gonna win one an' lose three, win one and lose three, win one and lose three, win one and lose three, all the way from November straight trough ice-fishin' season are right up ta April when the honkers start makin' their way back up ta Canida. Dere just ain't no rule that says a bad team can't win some games in a row, er, tother way rownd, that a team that wins some games in a row is gonna got right on and keep on winnin' at that same pace fer the rest of the season. If it did mean that, then they could just sorta call the season over after the first few games, 'cause the teams that was winnin' at the start was gonna keep right on winnin' at the same pace in just a genral kinda way.
But insteada doin' it the way I just said they got this 82 game schedule where all the teams play a lot of games. And what tend ta see happenin' is that sometimes a team will sorta start off like they're gonna set the world on fire but later on you look at the standin' and ya gotta keep lookin' furder and furder down the list 'cause all the sodden it seems like they're not winning anything but a trip ta see that popcorn machine dey got dere in Noo York.
So, anyway, Ay'm sayin' the five wins was no fluke, but that winnin' five times in a row was somtin' that happint, and wether it happens again or not is why we all keep watching the games, doncha know.
And I won't be here to see the day
It all dries up and blows away
I'd hang around just to see
But they never had much use for me
In Levelland. (James McMurtry)
"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."
i say no it wasnt a fluke THAT TEAM did what it took to win, hustle and play defense......that team played defense and seemed as if they were hungry to win.
i believe we were one of the top teams in blocks........ and its seems like the younger guys have almost given up........why???????? who knows, maybe because coach automaticaly put vetreans coming off injuies right back in the starting line up and taking minues from the young guys who were winning.
my starters: watson, rush, d.jones, granger, hibbert
bench: price, head, dun, tyler,solo/jeff............IMO.......that team equals wins
Fluke meaning "if you tried to win those 5 in a row 100 times you would only do it, say 20% or less of the time" then I say yes.
At least if you tell me that in most of those attempts JOB would have his full roster at his disposal, where he made the rotation and play calls.
Unfair to Troy??? Bulls***. That's like saying Reggie had nothing to do with his team's winning. If you help then you can hurt, period.
Troy does stuff like I saw last night. He leaves his man AT THE RIM, drifts off and watches the ball till it's rotated and fed right behind him to his man for a layup. When he does rotate for help defense he makes almost no effort to return to his man after the fact, something he did several times vs Utah.
Or something he and Tyler both did, Matthews drug Dahntay through a baseline screen and these 2 just let it happen. Instead of slowing Matthews down or clearing the path for Jones, they just stood oblivious or even expanded the screen with their floor position.
Later when it was Foster he gave Jones the path between he and his man so Jones could close out the shot. Or in the 2nd half when they tried to use TJ for this he stepped over and took the charge by Matthews.
The point being it's hardly a "what can you do" play. There are smart, helpful choices that have a serious impact on the outcome away from your own man scoring.
BTW, TJs good choice there aside, he's also a guy you put the finger on for typically not keeping up good awareness. Deron went off a baseline screen right to the corner for a catch and shoot. Not a fade, not a fake curl and drop, but a straight line for the corner. What does TJ do? Goes on the other side of the screen rather than following Deron through, giving him both the shot and honestly the baseline drive if he wanted it. Dumb.
For all the offensive shooting woes of Rush and DJones, those 2 read the court significantly better than Ford or Troy. Watson sees it better too. I can't stress enough how important that trait is. It turns bad situations into manageable ones and makes good plays out of nothing. It's why you want Dunleavy on offense and why you get frustrated with rookie mistakes.
And these plays often go unnoticed because it's a case of them not doing something. You just see the play on the ball, like Matthews getting his shot off over Jones. When I see that I back the Tivo up to see where he got open because it strikes me as odd when Jones "lets" his man get wide open. I think if you aren't doing that at times you probably aren't catching a lot of these issues, but they are there and they are hurting the team.
Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-05-2009 at 11:15 AM.
I don't know if it was a fluke, but if you take it away, we're 1-11. Think about that for a bit.
J/K Shade... I get your point.
The simple fact is IMHO JOB has ran his course. The good he was able to do is a distant memory now. At this point, he's close to doing more damage than good to the players AND ticket counter right now. He does not maximize his players short term or long term.
It's time for a real coach who can maximize the roster, not try and make a race horse out of a plow horse.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
Actually, I think he is probably staying 1 season too long. This team is not ready...nor is it capable of attracting a great coach. However, what it does need is a good, young, motivated coach who will make better personnel decisions. The young players need to play. That's really the bottom line if this team wants to get back to being competitive.
To step in fer da real Putn'm here:
What exactly do you mean by the word "fluke"?
Yes, the five games ended with more wins than they likely would have under ordinary circumstances. IIRC, we shot the ball very well at times during the streak, which inflated our total of wins beyond what it would have been otherwise based on our overall execution offensively, and to an extent defensively as well. But, teams who have shooters will go on streaks and win several games in a row at some points, and sometimes upset better teams along the way.
That said, I don't feel that any of the losses should have been wins, either. Until things change in several areas, we won't threaten a winning streak of that magnitude for a long time, and are possibly more likely to have a much longer losing streak (even a Nets level losing streak is not out of the question except for the fact that our shots will fall some times).
The poor play and coaching mistakes alike took away what chances the Pacers have had in the 11 losses, and I feel is a more representative sample of the overall performance of the franchise throughout the season, in large part due to our propensity to take an ill advised number of 3's and the undue pressure that places on our defense due to longer boards being gobbled up by our opponents with those boards then leading to better offensive initiation by our opponents . Danny, in particular, should not have been taking all of those 3's, especially while dealing with heel and knee issues that affect his ability to get consistent lift and stability on his shot.
Oddly, I think there may be a parallel between the Pacers and the Colts to an extent here. Good offense can sometimes allow defenses to be more aggressive and effective than they otherwise would be, much like this year's banged up Colts defense, which has appeared to be the best defensive team the Colts have fielded in many years. Obviously, there really is little similarity beyond this at its most basic element due to the fact that the Colts do have perennial Pro Bowl participants at multiple positions on both sides of the ball, but without Peyton working his magic early in games, the Colts defense has struggled for short periods this year despite its overall brilliance.
Our defense performed better during that 5 game stretch not just because of the personnel, but because of the fact that our shooting placed additional pressure on the teams we beat to match our scoring. It also allowed our defenders, notably Dahntay and to a lesser extent Brandon, to be more aggressive on the perimeter than they ordinarily would be able to be. That additional aggressiveness then took pressure off of Roy particularly, leaving him less open to committing fouls than he has been since our shooting fell off. However, with Brandon reverting to Brandon 1.0, other teams have been more able to harrass our shooting better due to our having fewer threats on the floor with our primary lineup.
Fluke may be a strong word, but I don't necessarily disagree with it, either.
Brad - I thanked the 3rd post in this thread for using the more appropriate word.
The term aberration is more accurate. I think you all get the basic idea...but maybe I should have pointed this out more explicitly after the 3rd post.
I was given hope... and have been let down.
But I guess being a Pacer fan you get use to it...
I need to update the title to specify that this is about the 5 game "winning" streak.....in case there is some confusion now...;<)
Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-06-2009 at 09:57 PM.