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

Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

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

  • Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/train...rsForecast1011

    John Hollinger
    ESPN.com

    2009-10 recap
    It was a case of the cure being as bad as the disease. The Pacers labored through the 2009 offseason to make themselves a better defensive team, and on that level their season was a success -- Indy moved up from 19th to 15th in defensive efficiency despite several injuries to key defenders in the frontcourt.

    Offensively, however, they tanked, and the two phenomena were related. In free agency, Indiana had invested in defenders with limited offensive games, such as Earl Watson and Dahntay Jones, and drafted Tyler Hansbrough to shore up the frontcourt rather than nabbing one of the several productive point guards from last season's rookie class.

    HOLLINGER'S '09-10 STATS
    W-L: 32-50 (Pythagorean W-L: 31-51)
    Offensive efficiency: 101.3 (26th)
    Defensive efficiency: 104.2 (15th)
    Pace factor: 99.4 (2nd)
    Highest PER: Danny Granger (19.85)

    Things might have worked out better if Danny Granger hadn't missed 20 games, or if T.J. Ford hadn't gone off the rails (again), or if Mike Dunleavy had made a more robust comeback from his knee troubles. But none of those things happened, and the net result was a Pacers offense in shambles.

    Indiana plummeted to 26th in offensive efficiency after finishing in the middle of the pack a year earlier, a performance that directly led the Pacers to once again fall just shy of the playoffs. That continues a frustrating trend of near misses: In the past three seasons they've finished ninth, ninth, and 10th in the Eastern Conference.

    Despite their scoring woes, the Pacers played very fast. In fact, they operated as a mini-Golden State in several respects, finishing either second from the top or second from the bottom in several categories in which the Warriors represented the extreme.

    Most obviously, the Pacers played the league's second-fastest pace, which isn't necessarily what you'd expect from a team that started plodders Roy Hibbert and Troy Murphy in the frontcourt.

    Considering the production of that duo, another unexpected issue was the Pacers' lousy performance on the offensive glass. Golden State was the league's worst offensive rebounding team, but the Pacers pushed them for the honor, grabbing only 21.6 percent of their misses.

    Off. Rebound Rate: 2009-10's Worst
    Team Off. reb. rate
    Golden State 20.9
    Indiana 21.6
    Boston 22.8
    New York 23.5
    Dallas 24.3
    NBA average 26.3
    There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent).

    The Pacers' other problem was a shot distribution that was far too democratic given the limited number of talented offensive players. Granger led the team in usage rate, as one would expect, but how could Jones and Luther Head have more touches per minute than Murphy? The sharing spirit extended everywhere except to puzzling second-year pro Brandon Rush, who finished last in usage rate despite appearing more skilled than several of his more assertive teammates. Somehow he led the team in minutes despite a 9.61 player efficiency rating.

    There was good news if you looked hard enough for it -- Hibbert emerged as a solid post scorer, and second-round pick A.J. Price looks like a keeper -- but in the big picture, Indy's offensive performance was a crushing disappointment.

    At the other end, the Pacers generated the league's fifth-best defense against 2-point field goals (47.6 percent), but that was the only thing they did well. In particular, they fouled with abandon. Indiana's .341 opponent free throw attempts per field goal attempt ranked 27th. (Golden State was 26th, natch.) All the frontcourt players except Murphy had monumental foul rates, with Hibbert's high rate being particularly vexing because it often took his scoring off the floor. On the perimeter, Jones also fouled far too often, leading to his ceding the defensive stopper role to Rush.

    Indiana's other big weakness was defensive rebounding. Although the Pacers weren't as bad as they were on the offensive glass, they ranked only 22nd at 73 percent. Combined with the poor offensive rebounding numbers, Indiana's 47.1 rebound rate ranked 29th in the NBA. Only Golden State, of course, was worse.

    This makes the offseason trade of Murphy a particular concern. He led the team in defensive rebound rate by a wide margin, nearly doubling the stat of the next-closest rotation player. Indiana has to hope Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts can ramp up their rebounding numbers enough to offset Murphy's departure; otherwise, the Pacers will face a deluge of second shots.

    However, the Pacers' biggest problem is a structural one: The organization finds itself handcuffed as it tries to repair the roster, because the team is near the luxury-tax limit and doesn't have the financial wherewithal to go beyond it. Indiana has spent the past two seasons playing a waiting game, signing second-tier players to inexpensive, short-term contracts until it slips under the cap in 2011 and can undertake more aggressive measures. Watson worked out halfway decently; Dahntay Jones, Solomon Jones and Luther Head did not.

    The team's only playable card, Murphy's expiring contract, has already been used (see below). Indiana is desperate to move T.J. Ford's $8.5 million expiring deal as well, but it faces slim odds of getting anything of value out of it. Should Dunleavy's knee prove to be at full strength, he'll represent the only other marketable commodity who isn't in the team's long-term plans.


    Offseason Moves
    Suffice it to say it was a fairly quiet summer in the Corn Belt. The entire management team -- president Larry Bird, general manager David Morway and coach Jim O'Brien -- are on the final years of their contracts, which could create some activity late in the season if the Pacers' lottery streak looks headed toward five. For now, it's all quiet on this front.

    They drafted Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Magnum Rolle. I really like the George pick, as I think he was one of the draft's more underrated players and should thrive in the Pacers' space-it-and-shoot-it system. I understand the concern that he's a bit redundant with Granger, but each is big enough that both can play at the same time against many opponents. I suspect that pairing will be much more troublesome for opponents to guard than the other way around.

    Stephenson was a defensible pick basketball-wise and a god-awful one PR-wise. Indiana had just finished fumigating its roster of all the players with rap sheets, an important consideration in the straitlaced Hoosier State, but Stephenson had considerable baggage in college and was arrested during the summer for domestic violence. He already had signed a contract by that point, but it's possible Indy will cut its losses and tell him to stay away, as it did with Jamaal Tinsley two years ago.

    Rolle doesn't have a contract but will be at training camp, and given that he's a 6-foot-11 power forward and the team desperately needs help at the 4, he probably will make the squad.


    Let Earl Watson go. Traded Troy Murphy to New Jersey, received Darren Collison and James Posey from New Orleans in four-team deal. Price's development made Watson expendable as the backup point guard, while Indiana gave itself a major upgrade in the starting group by getting Collison from New Orleans for Murphy.

    Effectively, Collison is the first free agent Indiana acquired with its upcoming 2011 cap space; it just made the move a year early. New Orleans stuck the Pacers with Posey's toxic contract, taking $7 million in 2011 cap room, and that's why they were willing to cut the deal for such a promising young player.

    Collison has a bit of T.J. Ford in his game -- a small, shoot-first speedster -- but he's also a good defensive player. Although he's not a high-assist player, he's much more in tune than Ford with the general idea that the other four guys should get the ball once in a while.

    That makes this deal a win for the Pacers long term, but in 2010-11 it may not pay great dividends -- Indiana had to open a giant hole at power forward to close the one at point guard. Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts will get first crack at closing it.


    Biggest Strength: "First shot" defense
    I have little faith in Indiana's ability to retrieve the ball when it forces a miss, but the Pacers should be able to force quite a few misses. The Pacers were pretty good in this respect a year ago, ranking fifth in 2-point field goal defense, and all the indicators are that they'll be better this time around.

    For starters, the addition of Collison is a major plus. Although he's very small, he's also a good defender with great fundamentals, and his ability to stop the ball at the point of attack should make life easier for the Pacers' frontcourt. Of course, the departed Watson also was good in this respect, but Ford wasn't and played a big chunk of Indiana's point guard minutes last season.

    On the wing, both Rush and Jones are solid defenders, and while Dunleavy isn't great one-on-one, he's an excellent team defender. Granger is a decent defensive player, too, and George's length should make him somewhat competent while he cuts his teeth as a rookie.

    Up front, however, is where the greatest upgrade is likely. Murphy was a great rebounder, but didn't do diddly before the ball went up. Hansbrough, presuming he can overcome a baffling inner-ear infection, is a far more active defensive player and will be considerably better against pick-and-rolls. Even Granger and McRoberts are likely to be upgrades.

    At center, Hibbert is learning how to use his size to affect shots in the paint, and his sharp drop in fouls last season was a good omen. Additionally, anything the Pacers get from Foster -- a very good defensive player when healthy -- will be a huge improvement on the zilch Solomon Jones gave them a season ago.

    Biggest Weakness: Rebounding
    There's no way to sugarcoat this -- the Pacers are going to get absolutely pounded on the glass. Even if Hansbrough turns out to be a monster, they'll linger among the league's bottom two or three teams in rebound rate; if he does anything short of that, they'll challenge Phoenix for dead last.

    Pacers' rebound rates, 2009-10
    Player Reb. rate
    Murphy 17.2
    Hansbrough 14.7
    McRoberts 13.2
    Hibbert 12.4
    S. Jones 11.6
    Posey 11.2*
    Dunleavy 8.7
    Granger 8.2
    *Played for New Orleans
    The chart shows the math: Last season Murphy was far and away the team's best rebounder, and he isn't around anymore. Hansbrough and McRoberts, the two probable replacements, grab about 4 percent fewer rebounds between them. That's a large difference, but it becomes a staggering gap if the Pacers go small and use somebody like Posey or Granger as the power forward.

    Murphy played nearly 60 percent of the Pacers' minutes last season; the resulting decline in the team's rebound rate would be on the order of 2½ percent if all his minutes went to Hansbrough/McRoberts, and considerably more if they went to smaller players.

    Indiana's 71.4 rebound rate a year ago was 29th in the league; Golden State, at 68.0, was the worst rebounding team in history last season. Take off 2½ percent to 3 percent based on the Murphy calculation above, and my back-of-the-envelope numbers project Indy's rebound rate to land between 68.5 and 69.0, depending on how often the Pacers play small. That wouldn't quite make them the worst rebounding team in history, but it would almost certainly make them the worst in the league.

    The one possible antidote would be a return to health from Foster. He missed nearly all of last season to undergo back surgery and has been plagued by health problems for the past several years, but when he plays he's a freak on the glass. Just 15-20 minutes a night from him as a backup center would provide considerable improvement.



    Outlook
    Stop me if you've heard this before. The Pacers, with one star player (Granger), one second-tier star (Collison this time, replacing Murphy and Dunleavy from past seasons) and a bunch of half-good players will be good enough to compete for a playoff spot … but not good enough to actually earn one.

    The upgrade at point guard should be roughly offset by a decline in production at power forward -- I talked a lot about Murphy's rebounding, but he's also a whale of an outside shooter, so the trade may not improve the Pacers' offense much. Meanwhile, the general mediocrity of the supporting crew should mostly offset the offensive output of the Collison-Granger-Hibbert core.

    The bar for making the playoffs in the East hasn't been set real high, so with a comeback season by Foster and good health from the others, Indy may squeeze through. That's especially true if the Pacers cash in their expiring contracts early to try to upgrade the roster at the trade deadline. More likely, however, they'll end up in an all-too-familiar position for the fifth straight season.

    Prediction: 34-48, 3rd in Central Division, 9th in Eastern Conference

  • #2
    Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

    34 wins i will be pissed if we only win 34 games.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

      I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing the benefits that a capable PG like Collison brings to the team at both ends of the court.

      I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that Murphy's stats were hollow, that his points and rebounds will be easily replaced, and that the round table in my office that my laptop sits on would be an upgrade over Murphy defensively.

      I just don't think his model is capable of recognizing that our your players are maturing and should be less inconsistent. I think his model doesn't recognize that a Collison-Granger-Hibbert core will be very competitive in the East (except of course for Miami.)

      I do agree with his comments regarding a George-Granger forward tandem. That's a good observation on his part, which is certainly rare for Hollinger. If George develops as expected, that could be a really strong part of our lineup... NEXT season. Not sure its reasonable to expect it right away given how many times we've heard the word "raw" associated with George.

      Right now, I think this will be a 0.500 team - assuming the "Big 3" are healthy and on the court together for 70+ games. And you all know that's a lot better than I've been predicting for the past 3, 4 seasons.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

        Wow great analysis....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

          Hollinger fails to recognize the positive impact of the fact that the Pacers no longer have a "designated rebounder" in Murphy, and instead will rely on multiple players to both block out and rebound, therefore the team rebounding should improve despite less likelihood of any single player achieving the rate of rebounding posted by Murphy. The Pacers might actually achieve average status within the league both from a rebounding and defensive standpoint that meets both the statistical and intuitive eyeball tests just because Murphy is no longer with the franchise, let alone all of the improvements that Roy will have made.

          Shoot, if half of what O'B said in todays media day coverage comes to pass with respect to how Hibbert and McRoberts are going to be utilized, coupled with a better Dunleavy being the catalyst to having a motion based offense, the Pacers are a no-brainer pick for 7th or 8th seed in the East in my opinion, and if other positive things occur as well, the Pacers could surprise all but the most optimistic of fans and actually end up in the mid to upper 40's in the W column. O'Brien would almost be vindicated with respect to his coaching competency if that were to occur, even in my heavily critical view.

          But, that would require that there is follow through on the indicated changes that are committed to long term by the coaching staff, and anything beyond cautious optimism regarding that is difficult for me to muster.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ
            I do agree with his comments regarding a George-Granger forward tandem. That's a good observation on his part, which is certainly rare for Hollinger.
            Wherever he uses the term 'power forward' he predicts serious failure on the Pacers. But wherever he recognizes that a team doesn't have to have a power forward -- that it can play two balanced forwards -- maybe the Pacers will do OK:

            Originally posted by Hollinger
            I suspect that (the Granger-George) pairing will be much more troublesome for opponents to guard than the other way around.

            That's something to look forward to.




            .
            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


            • #7
              Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

              Hollinger should write for BleacherReport
              Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                D. Jones got more touches per minute than Murphy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                  Quiet? What, nothing but snagging LBJ would be considered active?
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                    what was the last year's forecast?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                      "There were a lot of misses to grab, too: The Pacers landed 28th in field goal percentage at 44.3 percent. This was partly due to their preference for shooting 3s. Indiana ranked third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt but made only 34.8 percent of them; alas, this was still a better proposition than their 24th-ranked mark on 2-pointers (47.9 percent)."

                      I hadn't seen this stat before that shows the Pacers third in the league in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt. This seems like a far more telling stat about the Pacers' shot selection and preference for 3s than the stat I've seen here before that has the Pacers in the middle of the pack in the number of 3-point shots attempted.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                        This is good, fair analysis. I think our optimism hinges a lot on Roy's development. If he's the same as last year, I don't think we make the playoffs. If he makes a leap to a night in night out command a double team, control the paint center, the Pacers should make a jump too.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                          I love how he mentions that everyone elses foul rate was way higher than murphy's...wonder why that is.....hmmmm.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                            Pretty decent read, but man does Hollinger have a woody for Dahant Jones, he loves to bash him at every possible time
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger's 2010-11 Pacers Forecast

                              About Collison:
                              Although he's not a high-assist player...
                              I guess averaging nearly 10 assists per game when he was starting for New Orleans wasn't enough.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X