Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 142

Thread: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

  1. #51
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,035

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by presto123 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I want it to change as well as you do, but we have three deadly 3 point shooters on the team now and I hope Frank isn't afraid to use them. Roy Hibbert really has to put on the big boy pants this season.
    You can use your 3 point shooters and still be a power post team.

    Case in point, our very own Indiana Pacers.

    We attempted 19.6 3 pointers in 12-13 and we were pretty clearly a power post team -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...ate=2013-06-20

    We attempted 18.9 3 points in 13-14 but we had transformed into a jump shooting team -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...mpted-per-game

    The amount of 3 pointers was never the issue for us. It was the amount of pull up jumpers after a PnR that was the real problem.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  3. #52
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,288

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    how can you say it is a rebuild or retool when we haven't even seen the team play yet? WE LOST ONE GUY. If the Pacers come out next season and continue to play .500 level ball and looking like the the Pacers that ended the season then, yes that should signal to Larry to blow it up.
    Weren't we supposed to be a championship contender tho?

    Nobody is crazy enough to say we are a contender anymore, lol.

    The best case scenario that's been thrown out there is making it back to the ECF. That is not the direction we were supposed to be going. So at worst, we have to retool on our hands with no cap space for the next two years and low draft picks who aren't likely to contribute anytime soon.

    We were talking about a potential title 6 months ago, and now we are hoping we can reach the ECF?

    The truth is even the fans that hated Lance the most, realize this is a step back. They ain't talking about Championships anymore. They are worried at what they see. They might talk a good game and try to sound optimistic, but deep down they know this teams title hopes are done for the near future.

    So why NOT blow it up? Why waste time? Why? It doesn't make sense.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

  4. #53
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,441

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    The pacers need to learn from teams like Charlotte and Memphis. Last season Charlotte committed to being a power post team with Al Jeff down low and McBob running offense from the post. They became a better team and even a dark horse in the playoffs depending who they would be matched up with. Their weakness was not enough quality wing players who can shoot. Now they have acquired some Talent on the Wing and will probably be even better this year.

    Memphis 2 years ago was basically our Western Conference Twin. They got spanked by the Spurs, but the year before that they sent those same spurs home. They committed to a power post team with a gritty defense when Rudy Gay got injured 3 years ago. At the beginning of this last year they tried mix it up and get uptempo and they completely fell apart, and quickly reverted back to being a power post team, and saved their season.

    Pacers abandoned the power post offense and they looked lost and one dimensional on offense.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:


  6. #54
    Member Kuq_e_Zi91's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    2,312

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    I'm sorry, but how do you get this:

    Quote Originally Posted by joew8302 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Scoring was a major problem with Stephenson because he was a massive ball stopper.

    If we insert Miles we may be less talented, but I am sure we will be a better passing team with a smoother offense.
    from this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach Lowe
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He stood as Indiana’s only game-to-game jolt of creativity. They ran more with Stephenson on the court. They generated more shots within the restricted area, and though the Pacers shot fewer 3s with Stephenson playing, they nailed those shots at a much higher rate — especially from the corners. Indy shot 45.5 percent on corner 3s with Stephenson on the floor, and just 33.6 percent when he sat, per NBA.com. Corner 3s work only when someone creates them by penetrating the defense and drawing help.

    Indiana overall scored 102.9 points per 100 possessions with Stephenson on the floor, and a dreadful 98.3 when he sat. George’s split was similar, but George’s field goal percentage cratered from 44.4 percent with Stephenson alongside him to 38.6 percent when Stephenson left to go chat with Larry Legend.

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kuq_e_Zi91 For This Useful Post:


  8. #55
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,530

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    I think he does a VERY good job of talking about what the Pacers lose. Yet when talking about what Charlotte will gain, he fails to acknowledge the faults; it's almost as if he thinks Lance is a perfect fit there and Charlotte just gets to add his production to his core.

    The problem is that Lance, with his 35% 3FG% will be their second best shooter next season, behind Gary Neal, another shooting guard. With the exception of Neal (and maybe Henderson, their other current backup shooting guard), Lance is their best off-ball scorer. The special parts of Lance's game mostly involve what he does once he gets the ball, however. Which is exactly how you would describe Kemba Walker. Their main low-post option prefers the left side of the court while Lance prefers the right side.

    As Lowe mentioned, Paul George's FG% suffered while Lance was sitting. Yet when Scola wasn't hitting his midrange shots our 2nd unit was terrible with or without Lance. Who's going to be Lance's outlet in Charlotte? How much did Lance benefit from playing significant minutes as the 2nd perimeter option and the 3rd 3-pt option all year?
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

  9. #56
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,441

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm sorry, but how do you get this:



    from this?
    Classic Eye Test vs Metrics.

    I fall more towards the Eye Test. At the beginning of the season Lance was the NOS for our Engine. In the 2nd half the season Vogel broke the Valve on the NOS bottle and he cracked the engine head, bent a piston rod, and blew the valve seals. Too much NOS kills your engine.

    You almost have to separate the Pacer's regular season into 2 parts. The 1st half and the 2nd half for the season stats to mean anything relevant.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:


  11. #57

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well this is where George Hill comes in on the creating side of the offense. Paul George will have to create more offense yes, but George Hill will now be tasked to be a creator as well. I think something the national media misses is how good of a player Hill actually is when aggressive. I think everyone who watched Hill in SA and here when aggressive knows he can create, and without Lance, he will be forced to be aggressive. Stuckey isn't a bad creator himself either.
    If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


    I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 3rdStrike For This Useful Post:


  13. #58
    Member presto123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Noblesville, IN.
    Posts
    3,199

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


    I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.
    One reason I want Hill moved to SG.

  14. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,045

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


    I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.
    You can have a great offense without players constantly using their individual one v one skills to create shots for others.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  16. #60
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,530

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


    I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.
    It's harder to play the passing lanes on defense when you have to devote a guy to making sure Miles doesn't get more than 3 feet of space on the perimeter. Considering Lance is only a willing passer if his target was in scoring position, the amount of "ball movement" lost by losing Lance isn't equivalent to his handling and passing abilities. Hill, PG, and West are all willing passers. Having more open passing lanes will make Hill and Paul look like better passers than before, but for different reasons. Paul sees plays developing and sometimes forces it, and Hill is so careful with the ball he sometimes decides to not pass or doesn't see the play until it's too late. More space means more time to see the play and more open plays in general.

    I think people also underestimate Hill's playmaking abilities. Lance's 2 best APG years were 4.6 and 2.9. Hill's 2 best were 4.7 and 3.5. Hill's best two PER36 APG totals were also higher if you discount Lance's rookie season where he played minimal minutes in 12 games and averaged 6.6 AP36 (and 5 TO per).
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  18. #61
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,461

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Charlotte is now a better team, and we are now a worse team. Period
    David "And One" West

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  20. #62

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Charlotte is now a better team, and we are now a worse team. Period
    From a talent perspective I agree, it doesn't always play out that way however.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueCollarColts For This Useful Post:


  22. #63
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,266

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You almost have to separate the Pacer's regular season into 2 parts. The 1st half and the 2nd half for the season stats to mean anything relevant.
    I haven't followed the rest of the arguments, but I definitely agree with this.

  23. #64

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Please and thank you. I hope one thing that get banished from this team's offensive sets is the fake screen and rolls that both Roy and DWest run every time up the floor. This team never set any sort of real screens or picks for each other the entire year. I never got it. You have to big guys who aren't very mobile. Go have them plant their asses into a defender and get some separation for the wings. Instead all we see is slipping the screen or pick and basically never requiring the defense to react.
    like this?



    the Mavs run that all the time. we killed the Knicks with it so bad in the playoffs they stole it last season.

    or all the times we'd run the elevator doors


  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  25. #65
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Obviously Zach Lowe knows what he's talking about so I'm not trying to say the guy is wrong, but we have season of evidence that suggest losing Lance shouldn't be the detriment he thinks it will be.

    Zach continues to say that Lance is a necessary ball handler for the Pacers, but he's also for a long time criticized the Pacers lack of shooting. So which is it? Do they need more ball handling or shooting??

    IN 11-12 and 12-13 the Pacers had a HIGHER offensive rating than they did last year. Last year was the only year in which they had the additional ball handling and shot creating of Lance Stephenson. WHy was their offense worse??

    In 11-12 They had Darren Collison/Hill as the starting PG, PG and Granger as their perimeter players. The offense was better.

    12 12-13 PG and Hill were the only ball handlers. If you remember, the still underdeveloped Lance was basically non-existent on offense. The guy who stood in the corner with his thumb up his ***. So how in the hell will the offense suddenly get worse??

    We have 3 seasons of evidence that suggest this team probably needs more shooting on the floor versus ball handling. I don't see any reason why Hill and PG can't dominate the ball and this team be good. I think CJ Miles will start and help space the floor and just as is this team will be better. The team has badly missed shooting. A guy who simply sits on the outside, spaces the floor and nails three pointers. Hill was relegated to playing basically off the ball all season and his numbers badly suffered. THe season before? He put up 15-5, solid but not great numbers. This team can succeed as is, and I think we have all the evidence that they will.

    I think Lowe has done a great job and gathering the numbers of this team, but he's drawn some wrong conclusions. Lance is a very solid two way players but I do not think he was helping the team on offense. The way the offense worked last year? Sure the numbers would show he did. However, I think it was a offense that was doomed to fail. You put Hill off the ball (mistake), you took the ball out of PG's hands more than it should, and Lance took the place of what should be a dead eye shooter. In other words, Lance put up decent numbers, and he was a necessary cog in a BAD offense. I think CJ Miles could be a necessary fifth option, a nice piece that helps this team turn into a maybe an average or above average offense.

    It's going to take a lot of coaching tho. PLayers need to move off the ball, get proper spacing, do all those little things that they weren't doing last year. But I completely disagree with the idea that they need a third player in the lineup who can handle the ball.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  27. #66
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    I also completely disagree with the idea that Lance is suddenly going to make Charlotte that much better. In a weak conference they should be a solid team, but seriously everyone keeps forgetting what makes an offense work. Every great offense in the NBA has shooting. Every one, without fail. Yet somehow Charloette is going to defy all logic by starting three perimeter players that can't shoot? What the ****? I'm sure Kemba and Lance can put up some solid numbers next season, but to think those guys can make that team score at an above average pace when no one in the staring lineup can shoot worth a **** is insane.

    Every great offense has all these ingredients: A little ball handling, a little shooting, spacing, a little post game, and some transition offense. I mean it's different with every team, some concentrate one one thing more than the other, but you can't just leave something out. IF you have no shooting, you can't space the floor, the defense collapses on you and the games over.

    I can tell you right now if the Charlotte wants to walk into the fieldhouse with Lance, MKG and Kemba, the Pacers will eat them up on defense. They'll need to start a stretch four that's for sure. I guess if McRoberts (edit-he's on Miami, I'm dumb) improves his shooting more he could definitely help, but man that offense already has a massive flaw.
    Last edited by mattie; 07-18-2014 at 06:59 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  29. #67
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,061

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    That advantage shrinks without the team’s most dynamic player. It’s tempting to suggest the Pacers could replicate Stephenson’s bully game by inserting Rodney Stuckey, signed to a tidy one-year minimum deal on Wednesday, into Stephenson’s starting spot. Stuckey is another hybrid guard with mean intentions off the bounce and a useful post-up game from the left block.

    But he can’t shoot, and it will be hard for Indiana’s offense to function if George and Hill are the only 3-point shooters on the floor. Stuckey’s driving game can get a little wild and self-centered, veering into pull-up 17-footers when other guys are open, and his post game is really only a plus weapon in mismatches.
    Spot-on assessment of Rodney Stuckey. Could not have summarized his game any better in two small paragraphs. The bolded part is something I'm sure I'll have PTSD over.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  30. #68
    Member Downtown Bang!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St Paul MN
    Posts
    535

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    How does this team become an effective power post team with a center that shoots less than 45% and rarely is able to establish position and receive the ball within the painted area? Or with a power forward whose effectiveness in the post is inconsistent from game to game and very match-up dependent?

    This team will be toast next year if it makes post feeds to Hibbert & West a point of specific emphasis. We will be the easiest team in the league to defend.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Downtown Bang! For This Useful Post:


  32. #69
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    And for those saying they aren't sure if Hill will be aggressive with the ball in his hands? There is no question if he will. HE DID. Prior to last year he was third on the team in scoring, and was second on the team in Clutch scoring according to 82games.com. (last five minutes, teams within 5 points of eachother).

    The only difference is, how much better would Hill have looked if he had CJ Miles nailing threes instead of Lance doing little in the 2012-13 season? Or consider the massive improvements of Paul George from 2012-13 to what we can expect from him this upcoming season??

    This is probably closer to the truth- The Pacers offense was poorly designed last year because Lance was simply a bad fit. He didn't work. Remember the first half of the season?? The Pacers didn't score that well. They were ok, but not that well. I think they were ranked 20th in those first 20 games. And that was with Paul George playing at an ungodly level! PG came down to earth and the team imploded. It wasn't sustainable. There were a lot more issues in that locker room that made the second half turn into a nightmare, but I think the offense was poorly contructed.

    Put the ball back in Hills hand, put CJ Miles on the court... They also need to incorporate Chris Copeland. Just like what San ANtonio does, Copleand can be they guy they can hide on defense against certain teams. No reason he can't help stretch the defense against particular lineups.

    Anywho. I believe in this team this upcoming year because I've seen them win in the past. So they'll do it again.



    Edit - By the way, please don't misconstrue my comments as criticism of Lance. I personally love two way players and Lance has proven himself to be a solid two way player. I love his game. I love his attitude. I love his confidence. I wish he fit. He doesn't. Lance needs to play on a team with guys like Chandler Parsons as his teammates. He's a valuable player anywhere simply because he's such a good defender but he'd be even more valuable if he could be used for his strenths. A valuable ball handler who can get the ball to open shooters around him.
    Last edited by mattie; 07-18-2014 at 06:34 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  34. #70
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,266

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is probably closer to the truth- The Pacers offense was poorly designed last year because Lance was simply a bad fit. He didn't work. Remember the first half of the season?? The Pacers didn't score that well. They were ok, but not that well. I think they were ranked 20th in those first 20 games. And that was with Paul George playing at an ungodly level! PG came down to earth and the team imploded. It wasn't sustainable. There were a lot more issues in that locker room that made the second half turn into a nightmare, but I think the offense was poorly contructed.
    The rest of what you say may make sense, but I thought we scored pretty well in the first half of this year.

    Look at the monthly splits for 13-14 (or if you prefer, pre AS vs post AS). I also put in the 11-12 splits for reference.
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2014/splits/
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2012/splits/

    (Looking at PPG isn't perfect, but I'm not going to calculate per possession ORTG for these numbers. PPG will have to do.)

    It seems obvious that 13-14's numbers are dragged down by that disastrous stretch in March. All the other months are comparable to most months of 11-12, except for the hot stretch in April 2012. So really what we need to do is capture what went well in April 2012, and replicate that in the upcoming season's roster (we have to).

    I do think you may have a point about shooting though. Our hot start this year was fueled by some insane shooting from PG and Lance. If our new shooters can consistently hit the 3 ball... well, we could be this season's Portland. Unfortunately we don't have a Lillard to break down the defense so I dunno.

    EDIT: I found the thread were we discussed a similar topic

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...3-die-by-the-3

    Interesting to read back on.
    Last edited by wintermute; 07-18-2014 at 07:40 AM.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  36. #71
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The rest of what you say may make sense, but I thought we scored pretty well in the first half of this year.

    Look at the monthly splits for 13-14 (or if you prefer, pre AS vs post AS). I also put in the 11-12 splits for reference.
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2014/splits/
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2012/splits/

    (Looking at PPG isn't perfect, but I'm not going to calculate per possession ORTG for these numbers. PPG will have to do.)

    It seems obvious that 13-14's numbers are dragged down by that disastrous stretch in March. All the other months are comparable to most months of 11-12, except for the hot stretch in April 2012. So really what we need to do is capture what went well in April 2012, and replicate that in the upcoming season's roster (we have to).

    I do think you may have a point about shooting though. Our hot start this year was fueled by some insane shooting from PG and Lance. If our new shooters can consistently hit the 3 ball... well, we could be this season's Portland. Unfortunately we don't have a Lillard to break down the defense so I dunno.

    EDIT: I found the thread were we discussed a similar topic

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...3-die-by-the-3

    Interesting to read back on.
    That was interesting reading our perspective from the start of the season...

    Who knows what will happen, but to perfectly honest, this years potential starting lineup, of Hill/Miles/PG/West/Roy should be my favorite starting lineup the Pacers will have EVER put together. Not saying it will work, my predictions are about as accurate as a broken clock is right, but I'm guessing it will.

    I think Miles is going to be our Danny Green light, I think PG is our ball dominate perimeter player, I think Hill will have no problem throwing up 15-5 which is all we need from a point guard. We need nothing really from Roy on offense. I think West will play as well as we can expect- a good open jump shooter, and a solid post option. I think that can be a 12-8 ranked team on offense. And that would be good enough to make this team great.

    I really see Vogel giving Copeland a chance to be a major contributor and I think he can. Vogel let Scola play his minutes this year because history told us, that at least up to date, Scola was clearly the better player. Well, after Scola's sub-par season I don't see why Vogel wouldn't give Copeland a chance. I also suspect, given the opportunity, that there is no reason Copeland can't be a valuable knockdown shooter off the bench. Like Ryan Anderson but not as good. Why not? We finally have all the tools. This team will continue to play defense but now I think they can score. I really do.

    Edit- I'm a huge fan of what CJ Miles has become. Love his game. This is a guy I see who could have found his spot on a playoff contender. In Cleveland it wasn't the best situation, but maybe here, like Danny Green in SAS, I think he's really going to play well. We needed this. A healthy, shooter in his prime ready to do one thing, hit threes!
    Last edited by mattie; 07-18-2014 at 08:08 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  37. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  38. #72
    Undefeated
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Carmel
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,009

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    It's funny the massive range of opinion of the Pacers going into the season. Some view losing Lance as a bonus, though I personally can't figure out why. He led the team in field goal percentage, rebounds and assists last year, and was the only player we had who could handle a double team. People accuse him of being a ball-hog, but statistically, both PG and Hill were bigger ball hogs that Lance, both had the ball more and held it longer, and both had lower assist ratios and shooting percentage after handling the ball. There are things I like about Hill and things I don't, but I think he's bad in the playoffs when teams ramp up defensive pressure because he just can't handle it. You double team Hill and he looks lost.

    However, it really does all boil down to Hibbert. If he plays like he did for the first three months of last year then I think we're fine because we can play with more of an inside to out mentality. However, if Roy continues to play like he did for the last 4 months, we're totally screwed and I'd say about a 40 win team.
    Danger Zone

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to Rogco For This Useful Post:


  40. #73
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,266

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Edit- I'm a huge fan of what CJ Miles has become. Love his game. This is a guy I see who could have found his spot on a playoff contender. In Cleveland it wasn't the best situation, but maybe here, like Danny Green in SAS, I think he's really going to play well. We needed this. A healthy, shooter in his prime ready to do one thing, hit threes!
    Hmm, maybe I didn't pay enough attention to Miles last year. From what I remember before, he was kind of meh. Right now, I have higher hopes for Solo developing into a 3 and D guy (on practically zero evidence, LOL). But I hope you're right!

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  42. #74

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's because this team abandoned its power post identity for the better part of last year. We became a jump shooting team and our bigs were not happy about that at all.

    Let's hope that this is going to change this season.
    Wanted to thank this again. It is the most important part of next season, at least imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Quoted for the truth. I'm not sure why Frank allowed it to happen. It was Frank's biggest failure as a coach last year. I dunno if he felt the pressure to feature PG and Lance more, or just hard to argue against the early results the team was having. The team from 2 years ago was gritty, physical, and just plain executed from the post. Throw it down there and go to work. Crash the boards and get easy put backs. It was one ugly mo-fo of an offense, but our players were proud and wore it like a badge of honor! The power post should return in my opinion.
    JMO, but the reason this was allowed to happen was pretty straight forward. Danny got hurt and Paul had to become a SF instead of a SG. Post ups were a strong part of Danny's game. They are not a big part of Paul's. Paul can post SG's well enough, but his post game is basically useless against most of the SF in the league. Lance can post, but evidently doesn't really like to. With both the Pacer wings uninterested/unable to post anyone, the Pacers just became a jump shooting team.

    Paul's post game or lack of same is going to be a very important key to the success this team will have next season. If he can post guys, then teams will be unable to get away with guarding him with all the undersized guys they did last season.

  43. #75
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,441

    Default Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Quote Originally Posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How does this team become an effective power post team with a center that shoots less than 45% and rarely is able to establish position and receive the ball within the painted area? Or with a power forward whose effectiveness in the post is inconsistent from game to game and very match-up dependent?

    This team will be toast next year if it makes post feeds to Hibbert & West a point of specific emphasis. We will be the easiest team in the league to defend.
    By crashing the boards and getting extra possessions. The 12'-13' team proved that can be successful. Hibbert has never been an efficient post player. But you get extra possessions and keep hammering. That team led the league in points in the paint. Led the league in Rebounding.

    Don't you think we were the easiest team to defend in the league last year? All we did was settle for pull up long jumpers. Teams made us one-dimensional and the Pacers were all too happy to shoot the same shots we want to force our opponents into.. Long range 2's.

    Thats why Vogel is the most maddening of coaches in my opinion. Defense: Cover the paint and perimeter and force long 2's. Offense: settle for long 2's. Even Scola and West's bread and butter jumpers were long 2's toward the end of the season because defenses were forcing our PnR higher and higher.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

  44. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

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