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

Some Love for the Three

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

  • #91
    Re: Some Love for the Three

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    First of all you can’t take seriously a claim that the Pacers were “just jacking up shots”, or just jacking up threes or whatever, or that there’s “no real offensive plan”; I’ve heard posters on here call the offense “undisciplined”, for example.
    I think most people on here believe all of the things you just mentioned. Even the biggest O'Brien sunshiner should recognize the lack of discipline in our offensive gameplan, imo.

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    You might start with what O’Brien says his offense is trying to do, and then see if that is actually happening. He’s been quoted recently as saying that the most efficient shots in basketball are in the paint, the corner three
    19.56% of our threes were from the corner.

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    and the up-top three,
    24.91% of our threes were from up top. This means that a majority of our threes (55.5%) come from the areas that O'Brien doesn't consider as efficient. Nowhere in your post is O'Brien's offensive philosophy revealed...just some quotes about what shots he thinks are efficient.

    We've heard O'Brien's philosophies ad nauseam...penetrate, take the open shot, push the tempo, etc. etc. He's rarely mentioned offensive sets, pick and rolls, inside/out, read and react, or anything else; just broad strokes.

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    and he wasn’t going to change going for those shots until someone proved different.
    See above.

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    How did the Pacers perform in close? I have stats for shots under 10 feet, for example; that’ll include a lot of post-ups as well. So what happened last year? Indiana was 12th in the league in attempts; attempts are not makes, of course, but they’re an indicator of what the design of the offense is working for.
    Or you could say that the Pacers ranked 6th in the league in overall attempts per 48 minutes. I think the best bet is to measure what % of their attempts are under 10 feet, and then compare that % to the rest of the teams in the league.

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    An important issue is raised by people who question not only the style of the offense but the appropriateness of the players to execute it, so we also have to ask how effective the Pacers were at finishing inside ten feet: .462, seventh in the league. That part of the offense (it’s really several parts) is working well for Indiana
    Which is why most people want to see an inside-out offense, rather than the opposite. We didn't shoot well enough last year to spread the floor, and with our best shooter now in New Jersey, it will be even more difficult.

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    reflects the priorities of the coaching staff, and is having some notable success at execution.
    What % of our shots are from inside 10 feet, and how does that compare to the rest of the league?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Some Love for the Three

      It is time for this thread to die, but I'd like to reply to Peck on this:


      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I want to point out what the charts/graphs/stats/etc. don't show.

      1. What shots were available at the time the three point shot was taken?
      2. Was the long shot the first option by design or was this player decision.
      3. How forceful is O'Brien in assuring that the team probes and explores an interior shot or driving lanes.
      4. How many plays and audibles did the team run before taking the three point shot?

      These are things that I think really have to factor into the discussion as well.
      It is right that these factors ought to be discussed. But it isn't right to say the charts "don't shown" the effect of these and other factors. These factors -- apart from free throws, which you also mentioned -- are encompassed in the data shown, because those are the actual results of the season.

      If we explicitly took O'Brien's play calling mistakes and odd rotations into account we would get . . . exactly these results! It we factored in the times over the course of the season when a premature three attempt was the first option, the results would be the same. Of course, if we isolated only the bad calls, only the desperation shots, and only the garbage time, the results would be different. But on balance, those factors you mentioned are encompassed in these actual results.

      And the result is this: The Pacers have achieved a higher scoring efficiency for both 2-pt and 3-pt attempts under O'Brien than under any other coach in the past decade. That is the rock-bottom fact.

      EDIT: So what I'm saying is: You are right that those faults exist. But your explanations help explain the facts in the data -- not disprove them.

      It is a puzzle that such efficiency as the data proves fails so miserably to achieve wins and please the fans.
      Last edited by Putnam; 09-02-2010, 02:16 PM.
      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)

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Some Love for the Three

        Just to clarify, the Obie shot efficiency thing was from the Jim O'brien show on 12/23/09. He did say specifically that the most efficient shots are the top 3, corner 3, and within Five feet of the basket. Obie based this on NBA efficiencies, was my understanding.

        I guess I'd say the most efficient shots are based on two things.

        1.) what shots your personnell can hit consistently.

        If DC hits an 8 foot runner, is that not a good shot to take? Dunleavy a 18 footer? I mean maybe it's part of why TJ is so impotent in this offense, he doesn't have any of these 3 shots in his aresenal.

        2.) Open shots.

        I mean maybe you can get open more often for the corner 3, I can see that from playing basketball all my life, but for the other two shots, those are areas that are usually easily/heavily contested.

        So ya, maybe trends NBA wide are those 3 hot spots, but if you don't have guys who can hit those shots and you don't get open shots in those spots, whats the point.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Some Love for the Three

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          It is time for this thread to die, but I'd like to reply to Peck on this:




          It is right that these factors ought to be discussed. But it isn't right to say the charts "don't shown" the effect of these and other factors. These factors -- apart from free throws, which you also mentioned -- are encompassed in the data shown, because those are the actual results of the season.

          If we explicitly took O'Brien's play calling mistakes and odd rotations into account we would get . . . exactly these results! It we factored in the times over the course of the season when a premature three attempt was the first option, the results would be the same. Of course, if we isolated only the bad calls, only the desperation shots, and only the garbage time, the results would be different. But on balance, those factors you mentioned are encompassed in these actual results.

          And the result is this: The Pacers have achieved a higher scoring efficiency for both 2-pt and 3-pt attempts under O'Brien than under any other coach in the past decade. That is the rock-bottom fact.

          EDIT: So what I'm saying is: You are right that those faults exist. But your explanations help explain the facts in the data -- not disprove them.

          It is a puzzle that such efficiency as the data proves fails so miserably to achieve wins and please the fans.
          Ok I think I get this now, it took me an entire day to try and get it (I'm dense when it comes to numbers) but I think what you are saying is that nothing individually is explained by the numbers they are just an accumulative total of everything so it all kind of falls into one big category?

          If that is the case then, btw I'm not trying to be a smart @ss here I am just trying to make sure I understand, isn't it really even wrong to look at those numbers when the numbers you should be looking at are 32-50? Isn't everything encompassed in those numbers?


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Some Love for the Three

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            I think most people on here believe all of the things you just mentioned. Even the biggest O'Brien sunshiner should recognize the lack of discipline in our offensive gameplan, imo.
            I recognize an execution gap, but neither that nor any supposed lack of discipline are in the game plan itself. To say it another way, the game plan doesn’t play the game, the players do.

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            19.56% of our threes were from the corner.

            24.91% of our threes were from up top. This means that a majority of our threes (55.5%) come from the areas that O'Brien doesn't consider as efficient.
            An open shot is better than a contested one, even if it’s a 23-foot two. Note that one of the things that the coaches are teaching Paul George is one of the things that helped Danny Granger make his scoring breakthrough a couple of years ago: the shot fake on the hard closeout, followed by two dribbles and pop off the bounce in the open area - or a driving lane to the rim if it’s available.

            And on the other side of your point, in fact Indiana shot threes pretty well from 10 and 2 o’clock.

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            Nowhere in your post is O'Brien's offensive philosophy revealed...just some quotes about what shots he thinks are efficient.
            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            We've heard O'Brien's philosophies ad nauseam...penetrate, take the open shot, push the tempo, etc. etc. He's rarely mentioned offensive sets, pick and rolls, inside/out, read and react, or anything else; just broad strokes.
            For some reason you want ME to “reveal” “O'Brien's offensive philosophy”, and yet immediately you say that you’ve heard it (or them, whatever) to the point of nausea from the man himself! It is not clear what purpose it would serve to “reveal” a philosophy, or a strategy, or whatever it is that you think requires revelation, anyway; it’s on the floor to be seen. And I have no wish to nauseate you or anyone else. For the next section, maybe you should avert your eyes or at least pop a dramamine.

            The basic offense is a motion offense. It requires a great deal of discipline, in fact, to run it. Yes, they read and react (that’s a trademarked phrase, by the way); the guy with the ball, especially, has got to make decisions based on "what the defense gives you"; but every player on the floor has got to respond to where the ball goes, maintain spacing, rotate up or back cut on the weak side when the dribbler penetrates, flash when his man doubles off him or cheats to the ball, etc.

            Everyone has to keep moving, and your point guard cannot dominate the ball or the whole thing freezes. This has been a problem for the Pacers when TJ Ford hangs on to the ball and gets himself bottled up (maybe that’s one of the reasons the offense looked undisciplined to you). One of the rules in the offense is that dribbling laterally is avoided; if the defense stops the dribble, the ball-handler needs to give it up.

            Of course you can run a play for a specific player, such as Danny Granger, out of this general organization; you can run a set out of any motion offense that I know of.

            Pick and roll is a tactic, not a strategy - and certainly not a “philosophy” - that fits in the Pacers’ system; some motion offenses, like Calipari’s DDM, don’t use it much, but in O’Brien’s motion offense screeners can also “read and react” to create random pick and rolls. When the system is running right, it looks chaotic (maybe that’s one of the reasons the offense looked undisciplined to you), but it’s a thing of beauty when everyone works together and executes. That’s why Dunleavy thrived in it, and why Granger could become a dangerous scorer in it before they were even running plays for him.

            The reason they played Tyler Hansbrough every single possible minute last year was because he was born to play NBA pick and roll basketball (even though he didn’t get to do it that much in college), and they’re notably short of bigs who are effective at it. If there’s one thing the Pacers’ offense could use more of it is pick and rolls, and in general they need better screeners.

            The system even accommodates post-ups, as we saw last year (and again something that some motion offenses like DDM deemphasize) - and by the way it’s a huge asset for Roy to be equally effective on both blocks - showing the work he did in Summer ’09 - (now if he were only MORE effective on both blocks...).

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            Or you could say that the Pacers ranked 6th in the league in overall attempts per 48 minutes. I think the best bet is to measure what % of their attempts are under 10 feet, and then compare that % to the rest of the teams in the league.
            On the contrary, the best way to look at this is where the distribution of the Pacers’ shots is - in other words, where the Pacers are taking shots and where they are not. Because the issue is not: inside ten feet (or five) versus outside; it’s: inside ten feet (or five) and from the arc versus midrange - those are the shots they want. The question is not whether or not they were a good offensive team - they weren’t; the question is whether or not all those threes they took were at the expense of the midrange jump shots.

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            Which is why most people want to see an inside-out offense, rather than the opposite. We didn't shoot well enough last year to spread the floor, and with our best shooter now in New Jersey, it will be even more difficult.
            The Pacers did shoot well enough to spread the floor. I don’t know what you were seeing, but I saw coaches yelling at their players to close out Murphy and Rush and Granger when they got the ball at the arc. It’s simple math that every coach in the league has made; even the middling .348 (17th, tied with Boston) that they shot has an eFG% of .522; you have to guard that. But it goes deeper than that.

            Your claim that they didn’t shoot well enough to spread the floor hides an assumption that doesn’t jibe with reality: teams aren’t just looking up their opponent’s 3-pt.% on ESPN the morning of the game and then deciding whether or not to guard the arc; they scout individual players and locations. Earl Watson was a poor 3-pt. shooter last year, looking at his entire output; but from 10 o’clock he was excellent, and a smart defense has to know things like that and respond to them.

            In any case, to replace Murphy they’ve added the more versatile shooter Collison, who is not only accurate from all areas (including from the arc), but also a player who can move the ball to all areas, can play off the ball, and can make the offense happen when he’s got the ball. (Ford’s difficulty in going left, his ineffectiveness shooting from the left side of the floor, and his general ineffectiveness playing off the ball skewed the whole team’s offense and made him and the whole team about twice as easy to defend when he was in the game.)

            We can expect AJ Price to have hoisted a few threes as well this summer - he seems to like the 10 and 2 areas, by the way.

            The assumption of the Pacers’ offense is not: outside-in as opposed to inside-out; the choice between those two options is a false one. The whole idea is to work one off the other; it’s “three or key”, as the expression goes; if you’re playing Phoenix, which wants to get to the shooters, you get more “key”, and if you’re playing Utah, which wants to clog the paint, you get more “three” - but that changes during the game, and one of the goals of the strategy is to keep the defense running back and forth (and on its heels in transition) so that by crunch time you are able to score both ways.
            :
            Last edited by O'Bird; 09-06-2010, 07:00 PM. Reason: Deeper, deeper...
            :

            "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

            "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

            "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Some Love for the Three

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              What shots were available at the time the three point shot was taken?
              Isn’t the question really: are the threes open makeable shots?

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              2. Was the long shot the first option by design or was this player decision.
              Player decision - that’s how the offense works - unless, of course, there’s a crunch-time need to get three on a possession.

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              3. How forceful is O'Brien in assuring that the team probes and explores an interior shot or driving lanes.
              That’s what the offense is designed to produce.

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              4. How many plays and audibles did the team run before taking the three point shot?
              For a moment I thought you’d strayed in from a Colts forum.

              They want to take the shots that the defense gives them; it’s not that the three is some sort of emergency measure - they WANT to take threes, and they should be taking them. But they want to use threes to get into the paint, and they want to get into the paint to get open threes. And even when they’re running a play out of their offense, there are options to kick out for threes.

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              5. How many fouls were not drawn on the defense by taking a distance shot?
              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Not very far behind shot selection on the problem meter is the lack of fouls we draw on other teams. We are constantly being out shot from the free throw line thus giving our opponents 4 more shots a game. Not to mention the fact that we do not get other teams players in foul trouble while often times we are the ones seeing our players get into late foul trouble.
              I think that you're right to place a high value on drawing fouls; this is one of several reasons why Tyler got so much burn last season, and why you can expect more minutes for him this year.

              Consider, though, that if you only look at the number of FT attempts by the Pacers vs. their opponents, it conceals the real story - that though it's a problem area on defense, it’s actually an asset area on offense. In fact, drawing fouls, of the four factors that make up offense, was the one area of strength for the Pacers last year (when I say "strength", I only mean that they were average).

              Look at it this way: possessions can either end in scoring opportunities or turnovers (also in time expiring, but that’s a trivial number). The Pacers turned the ball over a lot, and that was the real Achilles’ heel of their offense, which reduced the number of scoring opportunities. If you look at their productivity at the line compared to their FG attempts (in other words, looking at whether or not their shot selection was keeping them from getting to the line), you see a different picture: they were 14th in the league - average - in FT/FGA. This is a team that got points at the line when it wasn’t throwing the ball away.

              Scoring at the line was actually the STRONGEST part of their offense. The weakest part of their offense was offensive rebounding, but they were not a good shooting team either, and as I said they turned it over a lot.

              TJ Ford has had his lowest-turnover rate season with the Pacers, but that’s inside being a very very high turnover player for his career; Watson is worse, and when you add in the ridiculous turnover rates of Roy Hibbert and Dahntay Jones, you can see that Indiana was chucking away their offense before they even got a chance to shoot or get to the line.

              People focus on the threes on this forum - it would be more interesting to discuss whether or not a motion offense is likely to produce more turnovers with this personnel. Turnovers are the killers - no chance at an offensive board, no chance for even a bad shot. The worthiest goal for the offense next year is to reduce the turnovers by a significant amount.

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Last season opponents shot 326 more free throws which was a vast improvement over the season before when they shot 541 more than we did and the season before when they shot 401 more than we did.
              Comparing opponents’ FTs to the Pacers’ is also pointing to their big weakness on defense, which is fouling; but I think that in this thread we’re talking about offense and what the impact of shooting a lot of threes is. Having said that, it is worth pointing out that Jim O’Brien announced as a goal going into last season a decrease in the FT gap, and it is at least good to see progress. I think getting it to zero is a worthy goal for this year, with numbers improving on both sides of the ball.

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Rush shot a whopping 89 free throws last year which I've griped at before but Murphy only shot 193 himself.
              Good point about Rush - and he was a C-minus FT shooter on top of it. He was over .400 from three, which is excellent, but a motion offense like the Pacers' sputters if guys are only spotting up; you especially want your starting 2-guard to be able to take a pass at the arc, put it on the floor and drive, which is how he could get himself to the line or make a play for someone else in a driving lane.

              The coaching staff had him working on his handles for just such a purpose in the summer of '09, you'll remember, but the result on the court this past year was not all that different (except that he became equally accurate from the LEFT corner, which after all is something to salvage from the disappointment). He should also be able to upfake from the corner and take two or three dribbles to the open midrange spot and pop from there, something that Troy Murphy does well; he could get a lot of open looks that way, and given his accuracy from the corner it's hard to see why he couldn't do equally well from closer in, drawing someone out of the paint in the process.

              You expect the growth between year 1 and year 2 to be some of the greatest of a guy's career. It's no wonder that Larry said in the end-year presser that this would be a "make or break" year for Brandon. The old NBA byword is that you don't know what you've got until the third year... I'm rooting for him - anyone who can play man defense like that could be a starter on a contender, if he could contribute more at the other end.

              I think I understand why a pro athlete would like marijuana so much - the dopamine circuitry in the brain must be amazing with neuromuscular skills at that level - but he looks to be stuck in his development in some important areas, and if I were Rush I'd be asking myself if there's something I'm not seeing about the drug and my skill development. And why is a pro athlete putting all that junk in his lungs?
              :
              Last edited by O'Bird; 09-06-2010, 03:17 PM.
              :

              "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

              "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

              "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Some Love for the Three

                O'Bird is making a good effort here to keep up the conversation, so I'll go ahead and reply to Peck's last:


                Originally posted by Peck
                the numbers you should be looking at are 32-50? Isn't everything encompassed in those numbers?

                Certainly the season record is the best single number of describe how the Pacers did. People sometimes say that a team is "better than its record." I don't think that is ever true. A team may have potential get improve on its record, but at every moment of the season, the team's record tells exactly where it stands. Everything is, as you say, encompassed in those numbers. Jim O'Brien is a 32-win coach.

                But we all have the urge to go beyond knowing and try to explain why the Pacers won only 32 games. And the W/L record cannot explain itself.

                We all form impressions based on observations, but our observations are neither very thorough nor very objective. The old saying, "I don't need the stats, I saw the damn game!" is wrong most of the time. People who think they saw the game may not have seen it at all.

                We could go through every game thread or post-game thread of last season and find a number of comments that were contrary to fact. Someone may have written "So-and-so did OK in the first half -- but he disappeared in the second" when So-and-so's first- and second-half stats were identical. Or they might say "Josh really lit 'em up" while the box score shows McRoberts had 4 points and two rebounds and a -6 +/- value, and the impression if "lit 'em up" was formed because of a snappy rebound (which Earl Watson would have picked up off the floor if he hadn't wiped the glass) and a thundering alley-oop dunk (that counted as two points, same as the most ordinary layup).

                The most common of these erroneous remarks all season long was that the Pacers shot nothing but threes and that shot selection killed them. This thread shows that the Pacers used the three only a bit more than the rest of the league, and used it effectively because 3pt eFG% > 2pt eFG%.

                We're still trying to explain why the Pacers only won 32 games, but we know now that we can't justify the argument of reliance on 3-point attempts and we can't blame increased use of the 3PA on Jim O'Brien.

                The explanation is going to have to come from observation and careful thought, but when the right explanation is given it will be supported by the data.
                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)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Some Love for the Three

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  True, and he has previously if a different system that emphasized passing instead of shot creation had been used ...
                  Passing is a great way to create shots - that's what an assist is.

                  Indiana was 10th in the league in the percentage of field goals that were assisted. The problem (there was more than one problem) was clearly not an unwillingness to move the ball, or a system that didn't include it. On the contrary, that was, relatively, a strength.
                  :
                  :

                  "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                  "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                  "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Some Love for the Three

                    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                    "Also, the three O'Brien years have seen the team with the three worst league defensive rankings of the last 11"

                    It may not have been well stated in retrospect, but I did not intend to say that the team was worst in the entire league for the last 3 seasons. What I did intend to say is the fact that the Pacers RANKED lower within the league defensive rankings during the last three years than they have at any other time in the last 11 years.
                    Got it - yes, your original statement was ambiguous, but I understand what you mean.


                    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                    ... Collison ... high turnover rate is a concern, especially with the directive to create shots first and then look for others after driving into the paint on the part of the point guards.
                    That is specifically NOT the "directive". Passing creates shots, too, of course - it's the best way to create shots, in fact. What a driver is supposed to do in the Pacers' offense is pass to an open teammate if he doesn't have a driving lane.

                    Collison was a rookie and had to shoulder a big responsibility suddenly last season; we can hope that his turnover rate will go down with experience. But in any case he was at least significantly below Earl Watson in that department last season, meaning that a PG rotation of Collison/Price is a big improvement on Watson/Ford even without development from the two young guys. I've argued elsewhere in this thread that Ford's play stagnated the offense, and that meant, I think, that even when he didn't have a turnover himself it made the team more likely to go away without a shot.

                    Collison's ability to move the ball anywhere in the frontcourt will be a big improvement for the flow of the offense, and his ability to shoot from all areas will take clock-pressure off, too, which should help with the team's taking care of the ball.
                    :
                    :
                    :

                    "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                    "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                    "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                    Comment


                    • Re: Some Love for the Three

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post

                      I guess I'd say the most efficient shots are based on two things.

                      1.) what shots your personnell can hit consistently.

                      2.) Open shots.

                      I mean maybe you can get open more often for the corner 3, I can see that from playing basketball all my life, but for the other two shots, those are areas that are usually easily/heavily contested.

                      So ya, maybe trends NBA wide are those 3 hot spots, but if you don't have guys who can hit those shots and you don't get open shots in those spots, whats the point.
                      Good points all.

                      Beg to differ about the three up top; that's a harder shot to guard than on the wings, especially if it's a big taking the shot. The corners are not only difficult to guard but the shot is closer than the other parts of the arc - only 23 feet.

                      To support your main point, Troy Murphy took quite a few long midrange jumpers, with the blessing of the coaching staff; he was open regularly for those looks because of catching at the arc and then dribbling past his man into an open area. Those shots are "no-no's" if you think that the only shots you should take are corner 3's, uptop 3's, and inside 5 feet. But an open shot taken by a guy who can make it is a shot you want, especially if it gives the defense more things to think about.
                      :
                      :

                      "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                      "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                      "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                      Comment


                      • Re: Some Love for the Three

                        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                        I believe that the ranking of 14th seems too high, and that similar to where the team was ranked in the league from a team record standpoint (21st) is likely more representative of its defensive effort...
                        You're a stubborn old cuss. I don't mind that, but you're going to have to offer something more substantial if you want to persuade me, for one.

                        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                        That is why I (and others) asked previously in another thread why you believe that the team was better defensively than it was offensively this past season, and we await your response if you could indulge us with your insights.
                        Because on offense they were poor at shooting, turned it over a lot, and couldn't offensive rebound worth a lick. You can quantify those things, it's not something that requires imagination.

                        If they "were" in some idealized sense a better offensive team than they showed on the floor - meaning that, given good health, they would have scored more points per possession, is a worthwhile consideration, but abstract - it's hard to be too interested in what might have been; if you sign a player you get his tendency to roll his ankle over along with his terrific first step, for instance. In the real world, on the floor, over the course of a season, they were 26th. That's a poor offensive team.

                        On defense their big strength was stopping shots; they were particularly good at the rim and at the arc. Their worst area was fouling, and they were below average at defensive rebounding. Turnovers average, but top ten at shooting defense. Shooting defense is probably primary; it takes the most effort and focus.

                        You mention effort - a team, as I pointed out in the previous thread you referenced, that defended the three-point line so well is not a team that is lacking in effort; you've got to run to close those shots out and contest. Along with the good rim defense they fouled a lot; could've been better - should definitely get better if they want to move to the next level - but you can appreciate the demand from the coaching staff not to allow layups.
                        :
                        :

                        "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                        "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                        "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                        Comment


                        • Re: Some Love for the Three

                          Rather than get into highly complex stats, I will just say that the absence of Troy Murphy will translate to more wins.

                          I don't have any data to back that up yet, but I should have some by Christmas.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Some Love for the Three

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Rather than get into highly complex stats, I will just say that the absence of Troy Murphy will translate to more wins.

                            I don't have any data to back that up yet, but I should have some by Christmas.
                            Well, in a way you do. What was the pacers overall recored without Troy Murphy? What was G.S. record immediately after trading Murphy?

                            Like all numbers it does not tell the whole story but like all numbers they are there.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • Re: Some Love for the Three

                              This has been a very enlightening thread and I hope it continues.

                              I have no idea if this stat is available or not, but it would be interesting to see how many passes per possession the Pacers average and then compare that to the rest of the league, and then to also compare where on the floor the assisted shots that go in are taken in comparison to the rest of the league.

                              My guess the results on these two subjects would be quite telling.

                              I suspect the Pacers average passes prior to an assist would be a low number compared to the rest of the league on average due to the relative lack of focus the players have on off the ball movement and receiving passes (a lot of players must become accustomed to receiving passes consistently and then be able to anticipate what to do given what the typical outcome of their part of that play normally would be before they can be expected to execute their portion of any given possession with reliability) within the few called plays that seem to exist in the Pacers apparently trademarked "read and react" offense due to being focused instead on making too many pass vs. shoot decisions on every possession with an apparently limited ability to make sound decsions that led to high turnovers and poor shot selection. A little additional structured movement and passing would go a long way towards stabilizing that aspect of the offense, and tend to produce a more highly consistent quality of available shots and likely would help reduce turnovers as well in my opinion.

                              I would also think that the location of the Pacers assisted makes would tend to be either shots at the arc off of catch and shoots or back door cuts that result in layups with a higher frequency than the rest of the league on average.

                              It believe it may also be telling to know where the assist passes originate, as well. I suspect that a lot of our assists happen from somewhere in the vicinity of the paint, and that the Pacers have a higher number that originate from the area in or near the paint than the rest of the league on average. Knowledge of this would lead opposing coaches to allow dribble penetration with a converging collapse that cuts off the Pacers primary passing lanes and lead to a higher number of turnovers than might otherwise occur because the opponents "read and react" defensively by judging where our relatively stationary perimeter players, or at least their preferred shooting spots, tend to be versus where the dribble penetration from the pg or wings tend to lead them to be when they typically make their decision whether to finish the play themselves or kick out to the perimeter (or hopefully to our interior players this year which would be a HUGE change).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Some Love for the Three

                                [QUOTE=O'Bird;1058239]
                                Isn’t the question really: are the threes open makeable shots?
                                It can be a question but it does not negate my part of the question. First you will have to define makeable? Pretty much using Putnam's theory as well as Occam's in this case if the ball goes in it was makeable if it did not then it wasn't.

                                But again it still does not take away the point of was there a better shot. just because you have a makeable three does not mean that it was the best shot to take.


                                Player decision - that’s how the offense works - unless, of course, there’s a crunch-time need to get three on a possession.
                                I'm going to assume that you are fine with this. That is your right however I have a problem with everything being left up to their discretion. Unless that is of course that we are to assume that every single day in practice that they are drilling in their heads to look inside first and the players are just choosing to take the easier shot. I don't really beleive that is the case here but let's assume that it is for the sake of this argument. Why then is it not on the coach to take out players who are not going with option #1, which would be to explore inside?


                                That’s what the offense is designed to produce.
                                Well in theory all offense is designed to make baskets, not all of them work. In our case you can correctly assume that our lack of ball handlers and scorers does prohibit a certain amount of our ability to go inside.

                                For a moment I thought you’d strayed in from a Colts forum.
                                Well to your defense there would have to be clear initial plays called to have audibles, so I may be going back to a time where the offense had structure.

                                They want to take the shots that the defense gives them; it’s not that the three is some sort of emergency measure - they WANT to take threes, and they should be taking them. But they want to use threes to get into the paint, and they want to get into the paint to get open threes. And even when they’re running a play out of their offense, there are options to kick out for threes.
                                Communism was designed so that everybody would have equal shares of both work and reward. Didn’t work for them and this offense is flawed as well. Sure there is nothing wrong with a three point shot. I’ll say that again so that I am clear there is nothing wrong with a three point shot. It should be an option, it should open the paint and yes spread the floor. But when it is not working then it’s time to try something else. You can quote me stats till your blue in the face about our offensive efficiency and where we rank in % of this or that. 32-60 and no way in hell will I accept that it is all the defense.



                                I think that you're right to place a high value on drawing fouls; this is one of several reasons why Tyler got so much burn last season, and why you can expect more minutes for him this year.
                                Ok, we are in complete agreement here.


                                Lengthy stuff snipped to shorten this post
                                We agree that spot up shooters are a problem with motion offense. Now why did Jim play two spot up shooters more than anyone else on the team?

                                Also I'm sorry but 2+2 does = 4 here. Brandon Rush & Troy Murphy are the two spot up shooters, they also play the two most min. other than Granger yet they are the two players who shoot the least free throws because they don't draw fouls very often. In fact I wonder how many freethrows either of them shot while on the offensive end in the act of shooting? Troy a lot more than Brandon for sure.

                                Yes our defense is lousy, now is that because the players are just lousy (which is probably the case) or is it possible the defensive system is flawed and the players that O'Brien chose to use were lousy as well (this is also possible).


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X