Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 113

Thread: Some Love for the Three

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,045

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    There is a difference between taking a lot of threes and basing a whole offense around the 3-point shot. One is a good strategy if you have good 3-point shooters, the other is a terrible strategy no matter how good your 3-point shooters are.

  2. #27
    International Counter bellisimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Age
    31
    Posts
    9,106

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    for me the problem with JOB's 3pt strategy is he wants to go "outside-in" instead of everyone else who goes inside-out. He wants to open the lanes by knocking down 3s...but to knock down 3s effectively, its been said to go inside out so that the defense collapses and creates enough space for the 3 point assassins on your squad...

  3. #28
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,236

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It always gets back to Troy, right? If I hear that tough rebound bs one more time I will puke.
    I guess you will be puking. The good news for your tummy is that Troy is no longer here for us to kick around regularly. As for tough rebounds, that's usually not the knock. He's usually accused of stealing someone else's rebound. I buy the former but not the latter. He usually snaps up the easy ones without another Pacer within 10 feet.

  4. #29
    bleed Blue & Gold PacersPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Many insightful posts on this thread. This thread seems to be centered around JOB's offensive philosophy in a roundabout way.

    First, I think its fine to shoot a high number of 3's if you have the talent to accomplish it. With Reggie Miller, Mullin, Rose and even Mark Jackson (he could shoot really well from deep), you have the shooters to incorportate that type of offense.

    To summarize, I dont think JOB adapts his offense to the teams strength. However, he really hasnt had much talent to work with either except Granger. For many I think it comes down to preferred offensive philosophy. Here in Indiana, generally speaking I would venture to say fans enjoy the more "traditional" approach to basketball. That is, passing, pounding the ball inside and kicking it out to the open man. The game has changed though, and is much more fast paced (perhaps due to the shot clock rule) than it was 10-20 years ago.

    Personally, I enjoyed Carlisle's system much better, emphasis on movement and finding the open teammate, and Defense. To say which is the best system is debatable.

    Point blank, I think the best coaches evolve their philosophy in order to maximize the strengths of their team. IMO Murph would have been better used at the top of the post, instead of the top of the perimeter shooting 3's. He had a nice 15 ft jumpshot, and on occasion could pump fake, then dribble drive; or drop it inside to Hibbert.

    Again, to summarize my point, I dont feel JOB is the best at adapting his philosophy to maximize his teams strengths (though the team he has had the last 3 yrs did lack talent in his defense). Perhaps the overall trend is shooting 3's, but the Pacers really dont have the shooters to play that type of style.

    Many on here point to Rush's 3 pt % and say he is a good shooter, but ive seen the kid play and his on the court performance doesnt really represent his shooting statistics. I have seen rush airball a wide open 3 before. Brandon can D up, but he is not even close to being the shooter his brother is.

    Granger is a good 3 pt shooter, and I would need to look at the stats on how many he takes on average compared to other NBA marksmen, but he seems to rely on it way too often. Even Bird has mentioned his hope for Granger to drive to the rim more often. Outside of Rush & Granger there really are no other 3 pt shooters I can feel confident in. Murph does have a good stroke from deep, but if your turning your PF into a three point specialist, I dont think your gonna win very many games. Even Dirk seems to shoot less 3's than Murph, and Dirk will post up as well, something Murphy seems to avoid like the plague.

    bottom line is, you have to have the talent in order to incorporate a 3 pt type of offense, and the pacers do not have a guy like Miller, or Ray Allen/ Pierce to win with that type of style.

    No offense to the JOB fans here on PD, but I would much rather see a more balanced type of offense regardless of the NBA trend.

    As the poster illustrated below. "live by the three, die by the three." I dont want to be overly critical of JOB, because I dont think he has had the talent to judge him fairly. However, I fully expect that if he is a good coach, than he will have no problems leading this current pacers team to 40+ victories this season if overall the players stay healthy.

    This season will determine his future with the blue & gold. Its important to mention though, if McBob starts jacking up 3 pointers this season then I will call for JOB's resignation. McBob has no business being on the three point line and if it happens I hope the Pacers find a new coach immediately.

    I dont agree that the three pointer should be the primary first option for a team unless it is a wide open look by a good 3 pt shooter. Threes should only be shot after the team has looked for an open shot down low, driven the basketball toward the rim, or tried several cuts to get an open look. With less than 10 seconds on the shot clock most skilled players can get a good look from deep, and an even better attempt with a screen/pick of their defender, so why should it be the primary option on offense so early in the shot clock?

    I simply prefer the more traditional approach to basketball, get the ball up the court as quickly as possible before the defense sets up, and if the shot is not there then run the offense inside-out.

  5. #30

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Fantastic thread about the best shot in basketball!
    Ignite the passion. Restore the pride. Shoot more threes.

  6. #31
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by bellisimo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    for me the problem with JOB's 3pt strategy is he wants to go "outside-in" instead of everyone else who goes inside-out. He wants to open the lanes by knocking down 3s...but to knock down 3s effectively, its been said to go inside out so that the defense collapses and creates enough space for the 3 point assassins on your squad...
    That is a good point. Except what if your team doesn't have an insidfe player that causes the defense to collapse and or an inside player that causes the defense to adjust and create enough space for open 3's.

  7. #32

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense. So here's some more stuff to think about:

    One argument is that the Pacers take too many "bad shots." But that would lead to a lower eFG% and would be made up only through volume of shots. But look:



    This chart compares the Pacers eFG% for two-point and three-point FGAs over the years. The first key point is that, for years and years and under various coaches, the 3-pointer is a higher-yield shot. Years ago the Pacers were more selective and a 3 attempt yielded more than 1.15 points per attempt. The value dipped under Thomas but has been rising ever since and has risen most (until this past season) under O'Brien while they were taking more of them than ever before. The change under O'Brien has been more obvious in terms of scoring productivity than attempts, since Carlisle actually coached a bigger rise in 3PAs than O'Brien has.

    But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher the last two years than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?



    The bad news is here:




    The Pacers have been one of the better three-point shooting teams from time to time over the years, but not very consistently. The blue line is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the red line depicting all NBA teams.

    But last year, the Pacers eFG% for 3-pointers dipped and fell below that of the rest of the league.
    Last edited by Putnam; 08-26-2010 at 08:52 AM.
    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)

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Putnam For This Useful Post:


  9. #33
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense. So here's some more stuff to think about:

    One argument is that the Pacers take too many "bad shots." But that would lead to a lower eFG% and would be made up only through volume of shots. But look:



    This chart compares the Pacers eFG% for two-point and three-point FGAs over the years. The first key point is that, for years and years and under various coaches, the 3-pointer is a higher-yield shot. Years ago the Pacers were more selective and a 3 attempt yielded more than 1.15 points per attempt. The value dipped under Thomas but has been rising ever since and has risen most (until this past season) under O'Brien while they were taking more of them than ever before. The change under O'Brien has been more obvious in terms of scoring productivity than attempts, since Carlisle actually coached a bigger rise in 3PAs than O'Brien has.

    But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher last year than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?
    One of the biggest reasons why the pacers went from 36 wins two years ago to 32 wins last season was last season the Pacers didn't shoot the three well at all. Not only did that hurt them in real numbers, it also allowed teams to pack in their defense and almost dare the Pacers to shoot threes or long range 2's.

    Putnam, I think your graphs show what I have theorized for three years now. Jim O'Brien's offense has for the most part done a good job at maximizing the Pacers offensive talent. I think he does adjust his offense to fit the players, an argument I have been making for three years by describing the differences in what he ran when he coached the Celtic es and the Sixers and then as Pacers coach

  10. #34
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacer Purgatory Praying for Paul
    Posts
    3,558
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense. So here's some more stuff to think about:

    One argument is that the Pacers take too many "bad shots." But that would lead to a lower eFG% and would be made up only through volume of shots. But look:



    This chart compares the Pacers eFG% for two-point and three-point FGAs over the years. The first key point is that, for years and years and under various coaches, the 3-pointer is a higher-yield shot. Years ago the Pacers were more selective and a 3 attempt yielded more than 1.15 points per attempt. The value dipped under Thomas but has been rising ever since and has risen most (until this past season) under O'Brien while they were taking more of them than ever before. The change under O'Brien has been more obvious in terms of scoring productivity than attempts, since Carlisle actually coached a bigger rise in 3PAs than O'Brien has.

    But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher the last two years than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?



    The bad news is here:




    The Pacers have been one of the better three-point shooting teams from time to time over the years, but not very consistently. The blue line is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the red line depicting all NBA teams.

    But last year, the Pacers eFG% for 3-pointers dipped and fell below that of the rest of the league.
    The 2 pt game was possibly enhanced statistically due to two factors, in my view.

    First, the team had more minutes of garbage time than in previous seasons, leading to less time against the top lineups of opposing teams, especially during the horrible mid season slump, and even when playing against the top lineups, those players probably did not give their best effort as often as in previous seasons. That may have possibly led to an increased effectiveness when drives occurred.

    Second, there were fewer drives into traffic by our wings due to both Rush not doing so very often despite the fact he should have, and Granger not doing so due to his injury that relegated him to stay at the arc due to lacking the ablity to be explosive on his drives. This may have led to fewer low quality looks in the paint and the effectiveness of the 2pt game increased as a result.

    Carlisle ran the offense, as deftly pointed out by another poster previously in this thread, "inside-out", by dumping the ball down low to JO for his famous "fadeaway clank" and baby hook, but JO was good enough to draw lots of attention away from the arc, leaving the arc more open for 3's, leading to a bigger rise, but I don't think more volume, than O'Brien. Arguably, Carlisle had a better set of talent for O'Brien's system than O'Brien does. For a while, Carlisle even came out and stated that the Pacers were going to start pushing the pace and even tried to increase the conditioning level of his players early in the season (I believe it was his final year) by doing more running in practices and even having players doing sprints on the practice court after games, sometimes even for players who got into those games. When he saw that performance was suffering too much, Carlisle went back to more fundamental basketball, but then further player issues and injuries destroyed what was left of the season.

  11. #35
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Putnam, a question about your fine graphs:

    The dates along the bottom of the graphs, do those years represent the start, or the end, of each season?

    For example, does 2009 represent the 2008-2009 season, or does 2009 represent the 2009-2010 season?

    If it's the 2008-2009 season, could you show us what these look like with the 2009-2010 stats added in?

    I'm thinking they are the year each season started, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

    For future reference, most of the time when a single year is used in reference to a basketball season, you would use the year at the end of the season, not the year at the start of the season. This is why it's confusing to me. The Lakers just months ago won the 2010 championship, not 2009.

  12. #36

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Putnam, a question about your fine graphs:

    The dates along the bottom of the graphs, do those years represent the start, or the end, of each season?

    For example, does 2009 represent the 2008-2009 season, or does 2009 represent the 2009-2010 season?

    If it's the 2008-2009 season, could you show us what these look like with the 2009-2010 stats added in?

    I'm thinking they are the year each season started, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

    For future reference, most of the time when a single year is used in reference to a basketball season, you would use the year at the end of the season, not the year at the start of the season. This is why it's confusing to me. The Lakers just months ago won the 2010 championship, not 2009.


    Each year is the start of the season. The data point marked 2009 is for the just-finished 2009-2010 season. I did it that way only to shorten the label and make it fit nicely on the chart.

    Sorry for the confusion.
    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)

  13. #37
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,620

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    One of the biggest reasons why the pacers went from 36 wins two years ago to 32 wins last season was last season the Pacers didn't shoot the three well at all. Not only did that hurt them in real numbers, it also allowed teams to pack in their defense and almost dare the Pacers to shoot threes or long range 2's.

    Putnam, I think your graphs show what I have theorized for three years now. Jim O'Brien's offense has for the most part done a good job at maximizing the Pacers offensive talent. I think he does adjust his offense to fit the players, an argument I have been making for three years by describing the differences in what he ran when he coached the Celtic es and the Sixers and then as Pacers coach
    Meh, maybe.

    It could also be argued that he uses the players that fit his offense. There is no real way to prove either theory.


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

  14. #38

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It has become fashionable to gripe about the Pacers' use of the 3pt shot.

    Let's take a moment to reflect on a couple of facts.


    Greater reliance on the 3pt shot is an NBA wide trend. All teams are using the 3 more, and the trend continues from year to year.



    The reason the Pacers (and everybody else) are ussing the 3 more than in the past is that players are getting better at shooting it, and so it has become a very potent scoring tool.

    Plus it spreads the floor!



    Next, the Pacers are not, repeat not, out of line with the rest of the league in their use of the 3. The Pacers have never been the top user of the 3 in any season:




    If you follow the yellow markers, you'll see that the Pacers trend in using the 3 is going up over the long run -- not just under O'Brien. Look back at the years when Rick Carlisle was coach, and you'll see that the Pacers increased their use of the 3PA during his years by a wider margin that O'Brien has done subsequently.



    The bottom line is winning, of course. And the evidence of the past 20 years is that 3pt attempts are not just for losers. I know I've read the argument that only under-skilled teams like the Knicks, Warriors and Pacers use the 3pt shot, as a way of trying to make up for other deficiencies. That is probably true in particular cases. But over the long run, the 3 is used just as much be winning teams as by losers:



    Each dot depicts an NBA team since 1990, aligning the team's reliance on 3PA and its season winning percentage. The complete random placement of the dots shows that there isn't any relationship between shooting 3s and winning (or losing) games.

    did you get these from somewhere or did you make them? i am impressed if you made them. and i also wonder where you find the time!

    not trying to clown on you. just curious
    Spikes gonna rip off my face and wear it on Halloween!

  15. #39
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,083

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Of course there's the argument that we don't need stats if we watch the games...

    Or that the only stat that matters is the scoreboard/W-L.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "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."

    -John Wooden

  16. #40

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Derris
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i am impressed if you made them. and i also wonder where you find the time!
    My smart-alecky (and rude) answer is this clip from Good Will Hunting:




    My honest, personal answer is that this sort of data manipulation and presentation is what I do all the time, and it is really easy.

    Thanks for appreciating it. I'm just trying to turn some of the forum attention so something other than speculation about the unknowable future.
    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)

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Putnam For This Useful Post:


  18. #41
    bleed Blue & Gold PacersPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    i think there is too much love for the three. per the link from espn below, indiana attempted the third most 3 pts in the league last season?!?!

    http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...GoalsAttempted

    they shot the 3 pointer 18th overall by %.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...ntFieldGoalPct

    regardless of the graphs, and the overall trend of the NBA, i think its pretty clear JOB likes/wants his team shooting the threeball. 3rd in most 3 point attempts in the league last year, yet the pacers really do not have the kinda talent to put it up from deep that often.

  19. #42
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by PacersPride View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i
    3rd in most 3 point attempts in the league last year, yet the pacers really do not have the kinda talent to put it up from deep that often.
    You bring up an excellent point. The Pacers didn't have the kind of talent to shoot from deep last season. (We could argue about that, with Danny, Troy and Brandon all good three point shooters, but that is not my point). OK for sake of discussion what kind of talent did the pacers have.

    Did they have a good low post player? No. Roy was average last season.
    Did they have a dynamic point guard who could score and breakdown defenses? No
    Did they have a wing player who could score and breakdown defenses? No, danny can score, but not breakdown and create for others.

    Just what were the Pacers strengths offensively last season. I would argue they were few and far between. We had Danny and his ability to score, shoot, get hot. OK, what else did we have. Troy from three on pick and pops was one of our more unique strengths, and that play did at the very least cause defensives to adjust. What else? I would argue the 3 at least gave us a shooters chance. Our quick shooting style at least gave our offense a chance to get decent shots.

    I would argue we have pretty good passing bigs with Roy, Jeff and Josh, but jeff played hardly at all and Josh only after March 1st. Mike Dunleavy when healthy is an effective player and perfect for this system.

    But those of you who complain about what the Pacers tried to do, what else would have worked better. What system would have matched better with the talent?


    Edit: on a related point - I think Jim O'Brien would love to have a deference maker as a low post player. His dream team to coach is the Magic.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-26-2010 at 03:04 PM.

  20. #43
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,073

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    As far as your questions UB, one could easily make the argument that Roy was average, because he wasn't given the ball more. Good things happened when he was involved. Also, we were told that AJ outplayed Earl and TJ in practice, wasn't given any time initially and when he finally saw the floor, he outplayed both there as well. Then he was shown the bench because we now knew what he was capable of, and well, it was his time to sit down.


    When positive things happened, when a different tactic was used, JOb abandoned it. That's why there's the infamous 5 game winning streak. Oops, I said it.

    He didn't match his talent with the system. AJ was better in practice, and when he got playing time, but was demoted back to 3rd string. Why?

    We never really got to see if a different game plan would work, because JOb pulled the rug out from under them so early.
    Last edited by Since86; 08-26-2010 at 03:12 PM.

  21. #44
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As far as your questions UB, one could easily make the argument that Roy was average, because he wasn't given the ball more. Good things happened when he was involved. Also, we were told that AJ outplayed Earl and TJ in practice, wasn't given any time initially and when he finally saw the floor, he outplayed both there as well. Then he was shown the bench because we now knew what he was capable of, and well, it was his time to sit down.


    When positive things happened, when a different tactic was used, JOb abandoned it. That's why there's the infamous 5 game winning streak. Oops, I said it.

    He didn't match his talent with the system. AJ was better in practice, and when he got playing time, but was demoted back to 3rd string. Why?

    We never really got to see if a different game plan would work, because JOb pulled the rug out from under them so early.

    Seriosuly leaguewide Roy was average as a low post player. He got better as the season went along, and I am hopeful this season he turns into a offensive force. But last season he was average. His passing last season was his best attribute.

    OK, maybe AJ outplayed TJ and Earl in practice, I don't know, we don't know. But while Price is a nice backup point guard and an excellent second round pick - he is not and was not a difference maker last season, I don't care if he played 40 minutes 82 games last season.

    My point is our offensive talent last season was really, really bad. We were extremely easy to defend and I cannot think of an offensive system that would have made our players good offensively. We had Danny and that was it. And danny is not someone who makes scoring easier for less talented players. We had no players teams had to double ever - Pacers were in the bottom 5 for sure in offensive talent

  22. #45
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,073

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Can I ask what basis you're evaluating Roy and calling him "average?" The way you're using it seems like it's a slap in the face to Roy.

    If you compare Roy's numbers versuses his rookie year, they went up across the board. Usually when a player gets limited minutes, and has a pretty good shooting percentage, you really wouldn't expect the shooting percentage to go higher with more minutes, yet that's the case for Roy.

    He increased the volume of shots he took by 80% and his shooting percentage went up from 47.1% to 49.5%.

    I think he was just "average" because of the way he was used, not due to his play. I'm not saying that he's anywhere near being the best, but he did pretty damn well while bascially being used as a passer and a screener.

  23. #46
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,073

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    And you're defense of not playing AJ was because "we don't know" and that he wasn't going to be a difference maker?

    Logic tells me if the coaching staff says he routinely out performs his competition in practice, and we see that when given time he out performs them during games, he should be the starter. Not the third string. Earl isn't a difference maker either, but he gets the starting nod, why? Doesn't practice as well, doesn't play as well, but is the starter. Makes perfect logical sense.

  24. #47
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Can I ask what basis you're evaluating Roy and calling him "average?" The way you're using it seems like it's a slap in the face to Roy.

    If you compare Roy's numbers versuses his rookie year, they went up across the board. Usually when a player gets limited minutes, and has a pretty good shooting percentage, you really wouldn't expect the shooting percentage to go higher with more minutes, yet that's the case for Roy.

    He increased the volume of shots he took by 80% and his shooting percentage went up from 47.1% to 49.5%.

    I think he was just "average" because of the way he was used, not due to his play. I'm not saying that he's anywhere near being the best, but he did pretty damn well while bascially being used as a passer and a screener.

    Compared to the rest of the NBA, he was average last season. Did he get any all-NBA votes

    I hardly think what I am suggesting here is a slap at Roy. An average NBA center is pretty good.

  25. #48
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,073

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    That has nothing to do with his skill set, but everything to do with how he's being used IMHO.

  26. #49
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And you're defense of not playing AJ was because "we don't know" and that he wasn't going to be a difference maker?

    Logic tells me if the coaching staff says he routinely out performs his competition in practice, and we see that when given time he out performs them during games, he should be the starter. Not the third string. Earl isn't a difference maker either, but he gets the starting nod, why? Doesn't practice as well, doesn't play as well, but is the starter. Makes perfect logical sense.
    I watched every game and I thought Earl played better than AJ did last season. Earl was the better player. Defensively he was much better, knowing the NBA game he was much better, veteran leadership he was much better, just knowing how to play the NBA game he was much better. In two years from now i would expect and hope that Price is better, but not last season

  27. #50
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: Some Love for the Three

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That has nothing to do with his skill set, but everything to do with how he's being used IMHO.
    We disagree. At some point everything cannot be blamed Jim O'Brien. I mean if Roy makes the allstar in two years will some still blame Jim for him not making it sooner, or for holding him back for as long as he did.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-26-2010 at 04:20 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Mark Sanchez: I Love the Patriots I love Tom Brady
    By Basketball Fan in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 10:16 PM
  2. Do you love your Pacers?
    By InYaFace in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 05:21 PM
  3. Mount Rushmore of Pacers
    By Major Cold in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 04:29 PM
  4. I love Hubie, and respect the Spurs so much
    By Unclebuck in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-26-2004, 09:46 PM
  5. "I love this game because..."
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-11-2004, 02:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •