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 breaks down our Roster

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

  • Hollinger breaks down our Roster

    GEORGE HILL, PG

    Scouting report
    + Long-armed combo guard with the handle of a point guard but a scorer's mindset.
    + Good spot-up shooter. Effective defender with long arms, especially at the 2.
    + Can slash to the basket and draw fouls. Slim build. Fairly athletic.

    Analysis

    I've always liked Hill better as a 2 than a 1, but as last season progressed he honed his point guard skills enough to do a solid job in that role. Hill had a career high in assist rate and a career low in turnover rate; in fact he had the fourth-lowest turnover rate at his position. While he still didn't create a ton (4.6 assists per 40 minutes), he at least got Indiana into plays, especially compared to Darren Collison.

    Hill was considerably more potent as a shooter, ranking 14th at his position in true shooting percentage. He made 36.7 percent of his 3s and 42.2 percent of his long 2s, and despite shooting mostly jumpers got to the line more often than most point guards.

    Defensively his length proved helpful in multiple areas, ranking among the leading point guards in rebounds and blocks while using his size advantage to play a half-step off most opponents. He does his best work against big point guards and short wings, but statistically he had solid grades across the board -- most notably, opposing point guards had just a 9.2 player efficiency rating against him according to 82games.com, while shooting guards didn't fare much better at 11.7.

    PAUL GEORGE, SG

    Scouting report
    + Long, smooth wing with natural scoring instincts. Can shoot and finish.
    + Struggled on D but showed potential. Quick hands and reads passing lanes.
    + Needs to play more aggressively, make better decisions and refine moves.

    Analysis

    Man, does this guy have an exciting future. Big wings who can handle and shoot never go out of style and are far more rare than this center-obsessed league seems to realize. George is 6-8 with 3-point range and can split pick-and-rolls off the dribble; the main obstacles to his eventual stardom appear to be his own aggressiveness and decision-making.

    He made sharp progress in his second season, however, and his athleticism spills out on the stats sheet: Among shooting guards, he ranked second in rebound rate, fourth in steals, eighth in blocks and 10th in PER, and he shot 63.1 percent at the rim with a high foul rate. But his skill is apparent too; he made 38.5 percent of his 3s and 81.5 percent from the line.

    Right now his weak points are all the finer stuff. He still turns it over too much (52nd out of 61 small forwards) and struggles with decision-making, and his jumper off the dribble still needs work -- he hit just 32.9 percent of his 2s from 10 to 23 feet.

    Defensively it's a similar story: He can be an impact defender with his length and athleticism, but he fouls too much (fourth-highest rate among shooting guards) and that takes him off the floor at times. Additionally, his on-ball defense isn't quite as strong as his disruptive plays off of it, although a move to his more natural small forward spot might help.

    Nonetheless, I'll be surprised if he's not in an All-Star Game at some point in the next few years, and he represents Indiana's best opportunity to take another step up in class in the East.

    DANNY GRANGER, SF

    Scouting report
    + Deep-shooting forward with a quick, accurate trigger. Very big for a wing.
    + Very effective going right but has a weak left hand. Draws fouls, money from the line.
    + Solid defender with good size. Limited court vision -- drives to score.

    Analysis

    Granger's game isn't always easy on the eyes, iso-ing for 20-footers or pretending he's running a pick-and-roll for something other than his own jump shot, but it is effective. He generated a slew of shots with very few turnovers -- cutting his rate sharply from a season earlier -- and his TS% was well above the norm for a small forward.

    Break it down and it was mostly the 3s that did it -- he shot 38.1 percent from distance, but hit only 43.4 percent of his 2s. However, he drew a lot of fouls for a jump shooter and shot 87.3 percent, the best mark of any small forward; between that and the 3s, it offset his subpar shooting inside the arc. In particular, contested long 2s have been a problem for him. He shot only 36.3 percent on 2s beyond 10 feet last season, after hitting 35.0 percent the season before.

    As for passing, Granger didn't really do that much -- only 11 small forwards assisted less often -- and that's the biggest limitation on his game. On the flip side, however, he'd also benefit from a more natural point guard running things and getting him cleaner looks at jumpers, rather than forcing him to iso so much.

    Defensively, I thought Granger was one of the league's most improved players. His effort was much more consistent than a season earlier, and all his statistical grades were positive. The Pacers gave up 3.6 points per 100 possessions fewer with him on the court and he allowed only a 12.7 PER to opposing small forwards, according to 82games.com. Notably, Indiana also put him in size mismatches less because it hardly ever played small with him at the 4.

    DAVID WEST, PF

    Scouting report
    + Highly skilled power forward who can shoot and handle. Deadly from midrange.
    + Average athlete but attacks off the dribble for jump hooks. Loves going between his legs.
    + Average at best defensively. Undersized, can't jump, and won't give fouls.

    Analysis

    West made a solid recovery from a torn ACL the year before, using his pick-and-pop and ballhandling skills to become a focal point of the Pacers' offense. The one key difference was that West couldn't jump. He was never a leaper, but he barely got any elevation at all last season. His rebound and block numbers declined, but it was more apparent when he tried to shoot over long defenders near the basket.

    Nonetheless, he was a big positive both on offense and in the locker room. West's pick-and-pop game made the offense flow. He hit a stellar 45.6 percent of his 2s beyond 10 feet while taking nearly five a game, and when defenses closed he could find the open man or dribble drive. West finished in the top quarter of power forwards in both assist and turnover rate, too, so despite a low foul rate and a middling true shooting percentage, he was a major positive offensively.

    On defense he showed he can still move a little, though having Roy Hibbert's length behind him really helped. West's primary value will always be at the offensive end, but he didn't hurt Indiana on defense last season, a pleasant surprise given his recovery from the knee injury. With one year more of recovery, he may prove more mobile than a season ago. Although he's 31 and his jump-shooting numbers may regress a bit, his high-skill game should age well.

    ROY HIBBERT, C


    Scouting report
    + Long big man with 18-foot range, post moves and great short-range touch.
    + Slow-footed defender, but his conditioning has improved. Mediocre rebounder.
    + Good passer and shot-blocker. Makes free throws. Stamina limits minutes.

    Analysis

    Hibbert took a major step forward offensively and on the boards last season, making his first All-Star team by being consistently good in nearly every category. Hibbert was above the league median for centers in all but two categories, defensive rebound rate and 2-point shooting percentage, and even in those two he was just a whisker south of the mark.

    Top Shooters From 3-15 feet, 2011-12
    Player Team Pct.
    Roy Hibbert Ind 47.9
    Carlos Boozer Chi 47.5
    Chris Paul LAC 47.5
    LaMarcus Aldridge Por 47.1
    Jarrett Jack NO 46.5
    Min. 150 attempts. Source: Hoopdata.com

    But his specialty is short-to-medium range shooting (see chart). With an unblockable jump hook on the block that he can make with either hand, and a soft touch from the free throw area, Hibbert was the league's best shooter last season in the tricky area between 3 and 15 feet, converting 47.9 percent while taking nearly six tries a game from this range. The bulk of them were close-in post-ups that enabled his jump hook, a potent weapon at his 7-2 height. Hibbert complemented that by improving his command of double-teams, drawing more fouls and crashing the offensive boards more.
    Hibbert's two other weaknesses were fouls and stamina, but last season he fouled at a rate below the league average for centers -- a massive improvement compared to his first two seasons. As for the stamina thing -- the Pacers may just have to live with that. Hibbert averaged only 29.8 minutes per game last season and 30.9 even in the playoffs, as he requires frequent breathers.

    But when he does play, he's been able to sustain his effort defensively and has become much better at protecting the rim while avoiding fouls. Indiana was marginally better with him on the court, but Synergy gave him the best grades on the team and subjectively he seemed to cope with pick-and-rolls much better than in the past.

    RESERVES

    IAN MAHINMI, C

    Scouting report
    + Athletic big man and high-percentage finisher near the basket. Draws lots of fouls.
    + Has a limited perimeter game and very poor ball skills. Lacks strength for a true 5.
    + Mobile defender but uncoordinated. Has sky-high foul rate. Injury-prone.

    Analysis

    Mahinmi is a free throw machine -- at both ends. Offensively he ranked sixth among centers in free throw attempts per field goal attempt, and while he's not a great foul shooter those freebies still allowed him to post the 10th-best TS% at his position -- even though his mark shattered his career low. It may all look a bit clumsy, but he shot 66.7 percent in the basket area, got to the line and scored at a decent rate.

    Defensively, however, he gives as good as he gets. Mahinmi averaged a foul every 6.5 minutes, the sixth-worst rate among centers, as he too often found himself in size mismatches and is a bit uncoordinated. He moves well and his defensive stats were solid in other respects, but his high foul rate makes it difficult for him to be more than a bench player.

    As a third big, however, you could do worse. He is 25 and has put up better numbers in his previous seasons, and even last season he was 39th among centers in PER. He's a passable 10-foot shooter and can play 4 in a pinch, he rebounds fairly well, and as noted above his ability to draw fouls and finish makes him a plus offensively, even if he's not much of a creator. A four-year deal is a risk, but he should help Indy.

    TYLER HANSBROUGH, PF


    Scouting report
    + Short-armed, hustling power forward with good strength and a scorer's mentality.
    + Draws lots of fouls by attacking rim. Selfish offensive player who forces low, line-drive J's.
    + Lacks length, but quick for his size and defends pick-and-roll well. Subpar rebounder.

    Analysis

    While Hansbrough's attacking, aggressive mindset is impressive and yields some positive results, one can't help wonder how much better he might do if he ever passed. Hansbrough is one of the league's most frustrating players because once he takes a dribble or gets an offensive board, he's never, ever giving it up, no matter how many defenders rotate in his way. Only three power forwards had a lower assist rate last season, even though he usually operated out of the high post -- "assist central" for most big men.

    Hansbrough also forces too many jumpers, taking four shots a game from beyond 10 feet and converting only 33.6 percent of them. As a result, he shot just 40.6 percent on 2-pointers -- only six power forwards were worse. The free throws were a saving grace, especially since he hit 81.3 percent from the line, but it's hard to argue his offense was a positive overall.

    Defensively, Hansbrough is tough and moves well, but his lack of size seemed more problematic last season playing next to another undersized player at center (Lou Amundson). Hansbrough had the third-worst rate of blocks and, more surprisingly, the seventh-worst defensive rebound rate among power forwards.

    Opposing power forwards had a 16.4 PER at his expense, according to 82games.com, and the Pacers gave up 2.6 points per 100 possessions more with him on the court, although Synergy graded him very well. With more length next to him in Miles Plumlee and Ian Mahinmi, I suspect his defense will become a net positive.

    D.J. AUGUSTIN, PG

    Scouting report
    + Quick, tiny point guard who can penetrate and dish. Needs to add a floater.
    + Struggles defensively due to lack of size, especially when posted up.
    + Improved passer and distributor. Great foul shooter, but mediocre from 3.

    Analysis

    I really like the progress Augustin has made as a distributor in his four seasons, but if he doesn't start making shots and getting some defensive stops, it's not going to matter. First, the good news: Augustin had a career-high assist rate, with nearly nine dimes per 40 minutes despite not having a bewildering array of options around him, and ranked seventh in the NBA in pure point rating. I think we can stop calling him a "shoot-first" guard.

    If anything, he should be shoot-last. Augustin hit only 37.6 percent from the floor, including a pathetic 39.6 percent on 2-point shots. In particular, he was the game's worst finisher last season, converting only 48.3 percent of his shots at the rim (see chart). On a positive note, he narrowly missed leading all Bobcats point guards in this category.

    Worst Shooting Percentage At Rim, 2011-12
    Player Team FG% at rim
    D.J. Augustin Cha 48.3
    Kemba Walker Cha 49.4
    Wes Matthews Por 49.5
    Norris Cole Mia 50.0
    Darren Collison Ind 52.6
    Min. 150 attempts. Source: Hoopdata.com

    Finally, while Augustin is a great foul shooter (87.6 percent) for his career, that hasn't translated to his 3-point shooting, where he submitted another mediocre performance last season. A tiny guard like Augustin has to be able to punish defenses from out there, and he hasn't consistently done it. Augustin could also use a floater, over the past two seasons he's a miserable 27.7 percent from between 3 and 15 feet.

    Meanwhile, he got lit defensively. Synergy, 82games.com and the advance regularized adjusted plus-minus all agreed he was terrible, and have been nodding their heads in unison for years now. Opposing point guards had 19.8 PER against him according to 82games.com, the Bobcats gave up 4.6 points per 100 possessions more with him on the court, and Synergy placed him near the bottom of the league's point guard heap. For a speedy little guard he's surprisingly mediocre laterally and has one of the lowest steal rates among point guards every season.

    Basically, he's a backup. As much as one might admire his improved distribution, he just doesn't make enough shots to be a viable starter, especially given the defensive shortcomings.

    GERALD GREEN, SG

    Scouting report
    + Athletic, explosive leaper with ideal size for a small forward. Ridiculous dunker.
    + Strong 3-point shooter. Ball skills only adequate, and prone to turnovers.
    + Lean build. Defense, basketball IQ and decision-making still are question marks.

    Analysis

    In a panel at the Sloan Sports Conference a couple years ago, Dallas owner Mark Cuban famously opined that Green "had no idea how to play basketball." At the time that was true, but Green has figured some things out since then. He showcased his newfound competence in a late-season call-up with New Jersey last season, after he had absolutely destroyed the D-League.

    The biggest difference is his 3-point shot, and how he uses it to set up the rest of his game. Green made 45.8 percent of his 3s in the D-League and 39.1 percent as a Net; he proved it wasn't a fluke by also making 41.9 percent of his long 2s. With his size and leaping ability, he can get his shot off against any defender. Meanwhile, Green shot 70.7 percent in the basket area, including an assortment of highlight-reel dunks (an alley-oop windmill in a late-season game against Houston takes the cake). Finally, Green's forays to the rim also yielded a high free throw rate.

    The question marks about Green at this point have nothing to do with his ability. Can he maintain his effort and concentration? Can he fit in as a role player on a winning team in Indiana, as opposed to putting up numbers on a bad team in New Jersey? Can he play defense the way he plays offense?
    The good news on that last front is that Green defended pretty darned well for the Nets. New Jersey gave up 6.0 fewer points per 100 possessions with Green on the court, and according to 82games.com opposing small forwards had only a 9.9 PER against him. If those numbers hold up, the Pacers have themselves a steal.

    MILES PLUMLEE, PF

    Scouting report
    + Athletic, pogo-stick big man who can run the floor and rebound. Good motor.
    + Non-scorer who gets points on dunks. Very old for a rookie. Good strength.

    Analysis

    Plumlee was an interesting first-round choice, because he has a crazy vertical for a player of his size and a single, elite-level skill: Only two prospects had a higher rebound rate. Nonetheless, he has a lot to argue against him, starting with the lack of production as a collegian against players two and three years younger than him. Plumlee turned 24 in September and didn't rebound at nearly the same rate in his sophomore and junior seasons.

    Additionally, he's a non-factor on offense and blocked shockingly few shots for a big man who can jump. Indiana took a flier to fill a hole at backup center, and he'll definitely get his share of rebounds. I'm just not convinced he'll do enough else to justify playing him.

    LANCE STEPHENSON, SG

    Scouting report
    + Average athlete with good handle, superior strength, solid midrange shot.
    + Character, commitment are major questions. Makes bad decisions with the ball.
    + Needs to improve long-range shot mechanics. Rebounds well. Can post up.

    Analysis

    The Pacers tried Stephenson as a backup point guard last season, and I'm guessing they won't try it again. Stephenson has some genuine skills as a passer and a decent handle, but he can't shoot and doesn't make the right play consistently enough -- ergo his massive turnover rate.
    He's an NBA-caliber athlete and he's only 22, so there's some hope that he might be able to turn things around. But his jumper is broken and one suspects any future he has will be as a wing player, where his decisions will be less destructive.

    SUNDIATA GAINES, G

    Scouting report
    + Strongly built, scoring-minded point guard who draws fouls.
    + Poor outside shooter and terrible free throw shooter. Bit of a tweener.
    + Excels at ball pressure, amazing knack for steals. Great rebounder for his size.

    Analysis

    My 10-second scouting report on Gaines: If he could shoot he'd be really good. Gaines is elite in several areas that don't require shooting a basketball. Among point guards he was third in rebound rate, eighth in free throw rate and second in steals. Unfortunately, he was also 65th out of 70 points guards in 2-point shooting, 69th in free throw percentage and 57th in TS%. He's more of a scorer than a point guard, however, and had the second-worst assist quality among point guards.

    On the other hand, Gaines' knack for steals was notable. He's excellent at pressuring the ball and the Nets used a lot of pressing tactics with him in the game, resulting in an incredible 2.77 steals per 40 minutes last season, good for second in the NBA.

    Gaines' overall defensive impact was more questionable; he lacks size and his gambles took him out of position at times. While the Nets were marginally better with him on the court, it's hard to attach too much meaning to this given how awful they were overall. Synergy had him in the middle of the pack as well.

    Nonetheless, he's a useful player despite his shortcomings. He's put up respectable numbers for three straight seasons at the NBA level, and he destroyed the D-League in 2010-11. He's unorthodox and some teams will flinch at that, but you could do a lot worse as a backup point guard.

    SAM YOUNG, SF

    Scouting report

    + One-on-one scorer who tends to stop the ball. Very strong, overpowers small wings.
    + Awesome shot fake off the catch. No 3s, but good midrange J. Good rebounder.
    + Solid defender. Tough, physical, aggressive. No court vision at all.

    Analysis

    If you're going to be a ball-stopping one-on-one player, you at least need to make your shots. Young couldn't buy a bucket last season, and as a result found himself strapped to the bench in Memphis and Philadelphia. Shooting 35.4 percent with a low free throw rate will do that, including an abysmal 21-of-81 away from the rim.

    Given the small sample, one suspects this was an outlier, especially since Young's other numbers hardly changed. But the decline in free throw attempts was worrisome. He's not a good enough shooter to live off midrange jumpers, so he needs to get to the basket more than he did last season. If so, he can again be a useful second-unit scorer for the right team. If not, he won't be around for long.

    JEFF PENDERGRAPH, PF

    Scouting report
    + Tough 4 who can rebound. Decent athlete who can score around basket.
    + Needs work on perimeter game and ball skills. Defensive mobility a question.

    Analysis

    Pendergraph is a dying breed in the NBA -- a power forward who can't space the floor. He's too short to play center so he has to make it work at the 4, and he's put up pretty good numbers in his limited minutes in Portland and Indiana. Last season he made only 5 of his 20 shots away from the basket, but he's a pretty effective garbage man around the basket thanks to a strong motor. He had missed an entire season due to a knee injury before coming back in 2011, and may get a stronger chance at sustained minutes this time around.

    ORLANDO JOHNSON, SG

    Scouting report
    + Scoring-minded wing with powerful build and 3-point range. Good handle.
    + Questionable shot selection. Not an elite athlete. Very long arms.

    Analysis

    Johnson shot over 40 percent on 3s his last two years as a collegian, and he'll try to use that as a launching point to a career as a deep-shooting specialist in the pros. He has a strong build and should be able to defend his position adequately, although that wasn't a focus of his in college.
    Outside of that, his options seem limited. He scored a lot in college out of necessity and had solid ballhandling numbers, but he shot 46 percent on 2s against bad competition. Plus, he's already 23 years old, which makes him quite long in the tooth for a rookie.

  • #2
    Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

    Ha! He used the phrases "natural scoring instincts" and "can handle" to describe Paul George. These are among the 2 facets of his game that even his biggest supporters say big weaknesses.

    Its gotta be hard to do these kind of reviews for a living, because most of what you see on players is just going to be highlight reels. I doubt the guy watched a bunch of Pacers games to research this critique.


    Name-calling signature removed

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

      Good Lord, this has to be the clearest evidence yet that Hollinger doesn't actually watch games.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

        I always thought he was a stats geek, but apparently he watches games too. It's not perfect but I have seen much worse breakdowns.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

          Originally posted by Banta View Post
          Ha! He used the phrases "natural scoring instincts" and "can handle" to describe Paul George. These are among the 2 facets of his game that even his biggest supporters say big weaknesses.

          Its gotta be hard to do these kind of reviews for a living, because most of what you see on players is just going to be highlight reels. I doubt the guy watched a bunch of Pacers games to research this critique.
          I've always said that PG has the ability to do these things, but lacks the aggressiveness and the decision making to do them on a consistent basis. I actually don't think Hollinger is too far off from most of his opinions on our players. I've certainly seen a lot worse, esp from ESPN.

          I actually think he's pretty close to the money with George Hill, Roy, DG, and Green.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

            I could never describe Paul George as natural scoring instincts.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

              Am I the only one that expected an analysis about Blake Ahearn as well?
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                Am I the only one that expected an analysis about Blake Ahearn as well?
                Unless his mom has joined PD, probably.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                  I thought the scouting reports were pretty good. I agreed with them far more than I disagreed. And I love the level of detail that Hollinger goes into.

                  The report on DJ Augustin seems pretty brutal. I knew his defense was bad, but the numbers look horrendous. And if we thought DC was bad finishing at the rim, turns out DJ was even worse.

                  Hollinger seems surprisingly upbeat on Hansbrough. His numbers were uniformly bad, save for FT rate, yet Hollinger concludes that he could have a turnaround season when paired with bigger, more athletic players like Mahinmi or Plumlee.

                  Gaines' description makes him sound like a poor man's Kyle Lowry.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                    Does David West "Loves going between his legs"? I need to watch closer or maybe that kind of thing doesn't matter to me.

                    Otherwise, I like this team, good breakdown, he misses some nuances that we see cuz we watch each game like the Zupruder film.

                    I agree he missed on some of the Paul George stuff, but I do agree he can do about anything and really just needs refinement of several things. I know we had a big thread on that last year with others disagreeing with me about where Paul is in his development. Still nice review.

                    I think Ahearn isn't included because he won't be included.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                      Somebody must have ghost-written big parts of that for Hollinger. He doesn't understand the "how" or even the "why", just the statistical output.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                        Originally posted by Banta View Post
                        Ha! He used the phrases "natural scoring instincts" and "can handle" to describe Paul George. These are among the 2 facets of his game that even his biggest supporters say big weaknesses.

                        Its gotta be hard to do these kind of reviews for a living, because most of what you see on players is just going to be highlight reels. I doubt the guy watched a bunch of Pacers games to research this critique.
                        Scoring instincts isn't the same thing as Aggressiveness. George knows how to put the ball in the hoop, we just wish that he'd do it more often. Also he's evaluating George as a Small forward, and his ball handling isn't terrible for that position, it gets exacerbated when he's being guarded by smaller players, but at the 3 it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. Hollinger also watches more basketball than you're implying.

                        He made some good observations about some players that clearly imply he's watched them play last year. For instance, someone only paying attention to stats would harp on Hill's low assist percentage, instead of realizing that even though he recorded fewer assists he actually did a better job of getting us into sets than Collison.

                        Most of his analysis, even aside from stats, which are, obviously accurate, is better than alot of other ESPN people.
                        Last edited by daschysta; 09-19-2012, 05:13 PM.
                        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                          Damn. I'm pissed I didn't get to this thread quick enough to make the obligatory, "It's Hollinger, so people will ***** no matter what he says" comment.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            Damn. I'm pissed I didn't get to this thread quick enough to make the obligatory, "It's Hollinger, so people will ***** no matter what he says" comment.
                            My first thought before I read anything was, "Oh great, a Hollinger piece". Littered with green font.

                            I actually came away pretty surprised. I think Hollinger has gotten better every year with his evaluations, because he is beginning to add more insights than just what his advanced stats show. I think this might be the most accurate thing I have read from him, IMO, but there were several points of contention still.

                            His breakdown of Gaines was nice for me, since I have seen very little of him. Gaines makes more sense now. I think he is really good at the things Augustin is not, and vice versa. I think the two of them could really push each other to be better and help round out one anothers' games.

                            I really like his "Scouting Report" portion of each player prior to describing them. Really nice touch to kind of familiarize people with players they don't necessarily know.

                            I think my biggest issue with Hollinger's piece is how high he is on Hansborough versus how little he thinks of Mahinmi. I think these are two players headed in the opposite directions. Last year, I thought Mahinmi made big strides throughout the season in Dallas, getting more comfortable as the year on with his defense. I thought Mahimni was a much better player than he got credit for here. I'm not saying he is some world beater by any means, but I think his defense will be what he eventually hangs his hat on as a pro. He really improved that 10-12 foot jumper. I think this is where watching the games, I see Mahinmi being the better long-term player than Hansborough regardless of what stats he is reading. Hansborough's shot is UGLY. If he put some arc on it, he could be lethal. He desperately needs to pass more to add versatility to his game and force people to fully defend him. He can't space the floor when he can't make that shot and no one will guard him then. He hurts us more than he helps us offensively, and on the other side, he gets shot over like Tia Carrera on an all-night-shoot in Miami. The guy is an ox, but doesn't think enough about the game to help himself and more importantly, his teammates out.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger breaks down our Roster

                              he calls hibbert a mediocre rebounder? 9 boards in 30 minutes is not mediocre.
                              roy wasn't particularly good at it when he came in the league. however, he has gotten much better since.
                              last season, he was pretty damn good. and i think all the strength training really paid off and it showed up everywhere, especially in the boards.
                              i suspect roy will be getting about 9-10 this year.
                              no reason another off-season of strength and conditioning couldn't make that happen.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X