Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

[Ace E.Anderson]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Whenever I read about how good a defender Lance is, the game vs the Kings in January comes to mind.

http://on.nba.com/1qpIF3q 11:45 - First play of the game. Lance gets screened by a half-assed screen by Jason Thompson and Thornton missed a open jumper.

http://on.nba.com/1qpJLfz 11:14 - Lance standing around and watching Thornton go to the rim and get a 1 ft tip in.

http://on.nba.com/1qpKnlt 10:17 - Lance getting picked by Jason Thompson and Thornton hitting a jump shot.

http://on.nba.com/1qpKIo8 9:49 - Lance going under a pick and Thornton missing an open 3 pointer.

http://on.nba.com/1qpNb26 8:21 - Lance playing follow the leader with Thornton around a couple of picks and Thornton making a real nice running hook.

http://on.nba.com/1qpNKZN 6:26 - Lance sticking to an Aaron Gray pick like they were both wearing velcro and Thornton making a corner 3.

After that, Lance got switched to covering Outlaw. Hey, I get it. Thornton is a good offensive player. But there were just too many nights like this where Lance just got stuck on every pick or played follow the leader around picks for him to be an above average defender. I think Zach watched him vs LeBron and extrapolated his defense a little.

Lowe is an admitted Lance lover and isn't exactly subjective about him.

Edit: before BnG or anyone else misconstrues my words, I think Lance is a pretty good on ball defender when he puts in the effort

[Nuntius]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

If you pay attention to watching the game, your eyes will tell you all you need to know without having to pour through a bunch of stats.

That's not true. Some people only see what they want to see and that makes the eye test unreliable as the only piece of evidence. The eye test is too dependent on someone's personal biases.

Statistical data is not manipulated by personal biases that easily.

[Kstat]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Offensive rating and defensive rating. Not particularly reliable statistics.

Analytics in basketball are pretty much crap. Far behind baseball and football. It seems every other day someone comes out with a new stat that either doesn't reveal anything new or completely misrepresents what it's trying to calculate.

[Tom White]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Lance also was a net overall positive when you include the ortg. I doubt he would have had a negative drtg if he hadn't played with Turner. I don't think it was negative last year. Scola was only a little bit negative.

I think the only meaningful comparison is Granger at +7.9 drtg to Turner at -7.7. That seems like a really big swing for what should have been the same place in the rotation.

OK. We have more acronims from the dictionary of stats.

For those of us who prefer to just watch the game, can you tell us what ortg and drtg mean?

[xIndyFan]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Whenever I read about how good a defender Lance is, the game vs the Kings in January comes to mind.

http://on.nba.com/1qpIF3q 11:45 - First play of the game. Lance gets screened by a half-assed screen by Jason Thompson and Thornton missed a open jumper.

http://on.nba.com/1qpJLfz 11:14 - Lance standing around and watching Thornton go to the rim and get a 1 ft tip in.

http://on.nba.com/1qpKnlt 10:17 - Lance getting picked by Jason Thompson and Thornton hitting a jump shot.

http://on.nba.com/1qpKIo8 9:49 - Lance going under a pick and Thornton missing an open 3 pointer.

http://on.nba.com/1qpNb26 8:21 - Lance playing follow the leader with Thornton around a couple of picks and Thornton making a real nice running hook.

http://on.nba.com/1qpNKZN 6:26 - Lance sticking to an Aaron Gray pick like they were both wearing velcro and Thornton making a corner 3.

After that, Lance got switched to covering Outlaw. Hey, I get it. Thornton is a good offensive player. But there were just too many nights like this where Lance just got stuck on every pick or played follow the leader around picks for him to be an above average defender. I think Zach watched him vs LeBron and extrapolated his defense a little.

[Tom White]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Stats show trends that can be investigated further with tape.

If you pay attention to watching the game, your eyes will tell you all you need to know without having to pour through a bunch of stats.

Stats can be manipulated to say whatever a person wants them to say.

Basketball is not a complicated game. People just try to make it more complicated than it is.

[cgg]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Good post. I don't know how many times I have seen invalid conclusions drawn from valid statistical information...but where the bigger picture is either not seen or purposefully ignored. Reality just has too many factors and that's why real statisticians often have PhD's.

Again, I DID NOT make any conclusion.

[cgg]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

But he was on the court more with those two than the other starters were, right? If so, wouldn't their deficiencies defensively pull down his numbers as well? If Paul was on the court with Scola and Turner more, would that not pull down his defensive numbers too?

Lance also was a net overall positive when you include the ortg. I doubt he would have had a negative drtg if he hadn't played with Turner. I don't think it was negative last year. Scola was only a little bit negative.

I think the only meaningful comparison is Granger at +7.9 drtg to Turner at -7.7. That seems like a really big swing for what should have been the same place in the rotation.

[cgg]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

I've seen several posts here recently about stats. Be very careful attempting to make valid conclusions from stats. The stats, even if accurate, are almost always accurate for a narrow range and the conclusions are often too generalized.

Stats show trends that can be investigated further with tape.

[joew8302]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Well I had a really long response and it got deleted, but I'll at least try to summarize how I feel.

Pacers have an interesting dynamic right now. Last year, we had two three point specialists on the roster that rarely played (Copeland and Butler), and Butler only got PT in the postseason because Turner was so obviously awful and Frank really had no choice but to bench him. Now the Pacers go out and sign CJ Miles and Damjan Rudez, both who seem like three point specialists, and Miles is probably going to start next year. Seems like a loud message from Bird to Vogel (who is on the last year of his deal, and the Pacers don't seem in a hurry to renew his contract) that the offensive system needs to be changed up a bit, and that Vogel needs to stop jamming square pegs into round holes and adjust his system and rotation to fit the talent we have on the roster.

Yet I am not a believer in this revamp, not yet by a longshot. We are basically gambling on Paul George to assume a bigger burden on both sides of the court next year, since Miles can't do anything off the dribble OR play great defense. So PG is going to have to take the toughest wing defensive assignment every night, and he'll be expected to create penetration on nearly every offensive possession to create the space that every other starter with the possible exception of George Hill absolutely needs to do anything on offense. As another poster so eloquently wrote, both West and Hibbert are like Miles in a way in that they are not really post-up creators and generally score off of wing penetration or other motion generated elsewhere on the offensive side.

So I agree with Lowe that PG is going to be TIRED at the end of next year. Not sure if that's a good thing. The worst case scenario for the Pacers moving forward is for PG to play his heart out for a 41-41 squad, and feel that our roster doesn't give him enough help or safety valves that allow him to step back a bit and not have to play at 100% all the time on the court. Meanwhile he's playing for a small market far from home...and the future of the Pacers starts to look uncertain.

The one big variable next year really is George Hill. If he can be aggressive, create offense every night and act as a consistent PG sidekick, we'll be okay. I would also like to see some Stuckey/PG action where Stuckey is the creator and PG is a little more freed up to shoot threes or mid range jumpers. People **** on the Stuckey signing (me included) but damn this guy is going to be an important part of our team next year. But we are going to have to be careful to manage PG next year and ensure that while he is the featured guy, he doesn't feel like T-Mac on some of those Magic teams or AI on some of those Sixers teams where they were otherwise so thin you had legitimate scrubs in the starting lineup.

Good post. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I do think this "rebuild" or "reload" (however one wants to put it) could work on several levels though. First, without Lance I would expect there to be more ball movement in the half court offensive sets. If we can move the ball more and maybe play inside out, that would mean less one on one from Paul which would preserve his legs somewhat. Also, Stuckey is a physical, athletic defender and Hill is quick with long arms. That gives us versatility to potentially switch one of these guys on an elite wing (depending on the skillset of the guy we are playing) to potentially give Paul a blow here. Also, I think Solomon Hill is ready to be a good defensive player in the league. If you put Hill at 1, Solo at 2 (and put him on the opponents best wing) and Paul at three I believe Paul cold get a little bit of a blow there.

I agree wholeheartedly with you stance on Hill. For us to be a contending team he needs to be more aggressive and much more of a factor on offense. There is no denying that. He reportedly has been staying in Indianapolis and working his butt off though, which is encouraging. Minus Lance I would expect him to get more offensive opportunities. I honestly think Hill is going to have a productive year and prove a lot of people who think he is worthless on these boards wrong. Another big question mark going in to next year for me is Hibbert. Is Hibbert going to be engaged defensively and give us 8 rebound per game, or are we going to get the Hibbert who blames teammates, pouts, can't rebound and throws up wild hooks? Let me just say I am more optimistic about Hill than I am with Hibbert.

[idioteque]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Well I had a really long response and it got deleted, but I'll at least try to summarize how I feel.

Pacers have an interesting dynamic right now. Last year, we had two three point specialists on the roster that rarely played (Copeland and Butler), and Butler only got PT in the postseason because Turner was so obviously awful and Frank really had no choice but to bench him. Now the Pacers go out and sign CJ Miles and Damjan Rudez, both who seem like three point specialists, and Miles is probably going to start next year. Seems like a loud message from Bird to Vogel (who is on the last year of his deal, and the Pacers don't seem in a hurry to renew his contract) that the offensive system needs to be changed up a bit, and that Vogel needs to stop jamming square pegs into round holes and adjust his system and rotation to fit the talent we have on the roster.

Yet I am not a believer in this revamp, not yet by a longshot. We are basically gambling on Paul George to assume a bigger burden on both sides of the court next year, since Miles can't do anything off the dribble OR play great defense. So PG is going to have to take the toughest wing defensive assignment every night, and he'll be expected to create penetration on nearly every offensive possession to create the space that every other starter with the possible exception of George Hill absolutely needs to do anything on offense. As another poster so eloquently wrote, both West and Hibbert are like Miles in a way in that they are not really post-up creators and generally score off of wing penetration or other motion generated elsewhere on the offensive side.

So I agree with Lowe that PG is going to be TIRED at the end of next year. Not sure if that's a good thing. The worst case scenario for the Pacers moving forward is for PG to play his heart out for a 41-41 squad, and feel that our roster doesn't give him enough help or safety valves that allow him to step back a bit and not have to play at 100% all the time on the court. Meanwhile he's playing for a small market far from home...and the future of the Pacers starts to look uncertain.

The one big variable next year really is George Hill. If he can be aggressive, create offense every night and act as a consistent PG sidekick, we'll be okay. I would also like to see some Stuckey/PG action where Stuckey is the creator and PG is a little more freed up to shoot threes or mid range jumpers. People **** on the Stuckey signing (me included) but damn this guy is going to be an important part of our team next year. But we are going to have to be careful to manage PG next year and ensure that while he is the featured guy, he doesn't feel like T-Mac on some of those Magic teams or AI on some of those Sixers teams where they were otherwise so thin you had legitimate scrubs in the starting lineup.

[NuffSaid]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

A lot is going to depend on Hibbert going forward, he needs to bounce back in a big way because it appears we are going to be running a lot of offense inside out through the post again. My bet is that CJ Miles and improved spacing should help in this department. The defense should be just as good as ever, the offense will continue to be the question mark. Paul George improving his handle would also be a big deal.

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.

I think these two post hit upon two very important points:

1) More consistent post play; and,

2) More efficient perimeter play.

Last season started off with Hibbert picking up where he left off the 2012-2013 season, but by the season's mid-point Hibbert wasn't so dominate and he slowly became a shadow of his former self. There were spurts of good play, but nothing like what he was for the 2012-2013 season or the post-season thereafter. I'm still not sure what to make of how fast he fell from being a dominate defensive anchor to a virtual non-factor, whether it was teams just figuring out how to play him and no one from Hibbert himself to the coaching staff figuring out how to counter or if Hibbert just isn't mentally tough, but one thing is certain: The Pacers need a strong, defensive force anchoring the middle. And if they are to rely on Roy Hibbert again to be that anchor, he needs to regain his dominance from 2012-2013 and be the Hibbeast the fans thoroughly enjoyed watching play.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have our Guard-play. There were two reasons I loved watching Lance Stephenson play:

1) He's a balla! The kid played with an aggressive attitude every time he stepped onto the court. He's very athletic, has very good ball control and has outstanding court vision making him a great passer. Although his 3-point shooting often made me cringe, I enjoyed watching Lance take the game to his opponent.

2) The kid played with an edge every game and it was natural for him; nothing fake about it. It was his energy that his teammates fed off of. Where he went the team generally followed. Fact is, Lance Stephenson often times changed the dynamic of the game for this team. He's also a playmaker. Few players on this team could take his man off the dribble - break ankles - and finish at the rim. Like I said, Lance Stephenson is a balla!

That said, I can understand why many Pacers fans feel the loss so profoundly. They know the impact Lance made on this team and don't see where the new acquisitions will be able to fill the void Lance leaves behind. Vogel will have to resist the temptation to revert to the ways of JOB and structure the Pacers' offense around an inside-outside game where 3-pt shooting becomes too much the focus. He'll also need to guard against forcing post-play through guys like PG, DWest, or Hibbert. The key is to find another "balla" amongst the players we have. George Hill, CJ Watson and Rodney Stuckey may be the keys to the Pacers success next season.

If the Pacers can get solid play from any of these guys where any one or a combination of any two of them can be that finesse player who surpasses expectations and becomes that "X" factor - because in truth that's what Lance was for this team -- a virtual unknown in the sense that you never knew when he'd unleash himself and go off in spectacular fashion - the Pacers can get beyond losing him and still be a force to reckon with next year. This takes me to how to use these guys to the Pacers' advantage.

We all know GHill is somewhat a square peg in a round hole at the Point. He performed better at SG. If I were Vogel, I'd let him play from the 2-Guard rather than the Point. Let CJ Watson start at the Point and bring Stuckey off the bench. Of course, all three are inner-changeable. So, you could start GHill and Stuckey at PG & SG, respectively, and not miss a beat, but it's not something I'd do. I'd learn from last season realizing the GHill wasn't always aggressive enough at the Point nor did he always seem comfortable producing offensively from there. CJ Watson, on the other hand, relishes it! Because I'm a firm believing in allowing players to perform from the natural positions, I'd advocate to start CJ Watson at the Point and GHill at SG w/Stuckey as his backup.

If Vogel can rekindle a flame in Roy and get this trio of Guards to perform well together with one of them taking on the bull-dog role Lance vacated, the Pacers can still be a threat in the East. If not...

[BlueNGold]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

But he was on the court more with those two than the other starters were, right? If so, wouldn't their deficiencies defensively pull down his numbers as well? If Paul was on the court with Scola and Turner more, would that not pull down his defensive numbers too?

Good post. I don't know how many times I have seen invalid conclusions drawn from valid statistical information...but where the bigger picture is either not seen or purposefully ignored. Reality just has too many factors and that's why real statisticians often have PhD's.

[Tom White]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Technically, he was one of three rotational players that the defense was better when he was off the court, with Scola and Turner.

But he was on the court more with those two than the other starters were, right? If so, wouldn't their deficiencies defensively pull down his numbers as well? If Paul was on the court with Scola and Turner more, would that not pull down his defensive numbers too?

[BlueNGold]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Technically, he was one of three rotational players that the defense was better when he was off the court, with Scola and Turner.

I've seen several posts here recently about stats. Be very careful attempting to make valid conclusions from stats. The stats, even if accurate, are almost always accurate for a narrow range and the conclusions are often too generalized.