Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

[Ace E.Anderson]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

What are you basing that on? Lance is a plus defender, this is fairly well known.

I'm not touching the rebounding thing, because you actually said Roy will average 2 more boards per game for the whole season. Bookmarked!

He's basing it on looking at Lance's defense in it's entirety. You're right, Lance is a plus defender on the ball. In fact, Lance is very good on the ball and very good at containing penetration where he can utilize his strength and his length. He's definitely better at guarding bigger SF's than he is 2-guards where he can utilize his strength more and more.

He is not quite as good against players that have a good second, or even 3rd offensive move - as his lack of lateral quickness hurts him here (see D.Wade) He also struggles against guys that spot up, move off the ball, and/or can spread the floor - as he tends to ball watch so that he can get into position to rebound.

He's also not a guy that creates turnovers, blocks shots, etc.

So what you have is a very very good on the ball defender, an un-disciplined off the ball defender, and a guy that doesn't create turnovers. Eleazar seems to believe (and I could be wrong) that Lance's off the ball defense averages out his on-ball defense - which equates to an average defender.

Just my $0.02

[Eleazar]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

So what you have is a very very good on the ball defender, an un-disciplined off the ball defender, and a guy that doesn't create turnovers. Eleazar seems to believe (and I could be wrong) that Lance's off the ball defense averages out his on-ball defense - which equates to an average defender.

I think he is an ok on-ball defender, who can be an excellent on-ball defender when he tries. Yeah, he is poor off the ball. For him it is just about effort, and he doesn't always put in the effort.

[Downtown Bang!]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Being a power post team is more than just the big's posting. It is being able to post 1 thru 5 if a guy is defended by a minus defender. Teams get away guarding Paul with guys that are 6 inches shorter all the time. Just remember Danny before his knee injury. Put an undersized guy on him and Danny instantly took him into the post. Paul either couldn't or wouldn't use his height advantage last season. Lance has good size at the 2, but didn't want to post either. He'd rather use his size off the bounce instead. GHill can post guys, but no one ever seemed to be able to get him the ball when he did. Being a power post team means posting all your guys, not just your bigs.

I couldn't disagree more with the last part of your post.
Our offense was at it's most effective when we would play from the inside out. Very few teams can defend Hibbert and West in the paint. I know Hibbert struggled at the end of the season but he's shown that he can be effective when we include him in the offensive plan. Hibbert and West are also very good passers for big men. We need to establish our post game to start every game which will open up the perimeter and we have the tools to do it. Our struggles started when Vogel gave the reins to Lance and Paul which turned us into a jump shooting team.

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 guys obviously have a different definition of a power post team. Power post teams impose their will on other teams. They repeatedly go to their bigs on post-ups even when other teams know that is what they are going to run and they execute. There is no emphasis on posting wings & point guards (exactly what current team in the NBA emphasizes this in their offense??) and there is minimal deception required to get the post-up guys the ball. Good teams with this approach have personnel that carve out space, personnel that can deliver the ball and they catch the ball and go to work. The 2-games Bynum played last year was the closest anybody saw this team effectively run that offense.

Calling this team a power post team is like saying an NFL team that averages 3.6 yards a carry & can't convert short yardage is a power running team just because that is a scheme they try to run. The Pacers repeatedly tried to establish this type of offense last year with Hibbert & West and it failed miserably. The only time it has ever worked with any consistency is in the 2013 ECF against the defensively woeful Heat front line.

Hibbert & West do need to score effectively in the painted area but those opportunities should not come off of power post entries. Those two are only going to be consistently effective game in and game out getting their touches by catching drop offs after penetration, duck-ins off the baseline (probably after penetration or excellent ball movement) and when slipping picks high to catch a pass on the move or faking picks low only to turn and catch the ball deep in the paint. Deception and action off designed motion is how these guys score effectively in the paint. This is not a power post game and because of the limitations of the two of them it requires they receive the ball at almost point blank range. Hibbert has his reputation as a underachieving offensive performer for a reason and there is also a reason West's nickname is the 18-foot assassin.

I agree the team will need to focus on rebounding in order to get extra possessions and easy put backs. The problem with that approach is the Pacers advantage on the boards the last 2 seasons came from George, Stephenson & Hill not from Hibbert & West. All three of those guys rebounded at a very high rate for their position. Trouble is the best one (cue Lance stealing rebounds comments) is playing in Charlotte next year. It is worth the effort but I'm not expecting the same results with Stuckey & Miles.

[cgg]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

What are you basing that on? Lance is a plus defender, this is fairly well known.

I'm not touching the rebounding thing, because you actually said Roy will average 2 more boards per game for the whole season. Bookmarked!

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

[owl]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

You guys obviously have a different definition of a power post team. Power post teams impose their will on other teams. They repeatedly go to their bigs on post-ups even when other teams know that is what they are going to run and they execute. There is no emphasis on posting wings & point guards (exactly what current team in the NBA emphasizes this in their offense??) and there is minimal deception required to get the post-up guys the ball. Good teams with this approach have personnel that carve out space, personnel that can deliver the ball and they catch the ball and go to work. The 2-games Bynum played last year was the closest anybody saw this team effectively run that offense.

So very true. Now should the Pacers try and go inside out? Sure but last year teams packed the middle and dared the Pacers to shoot from outside. From three or two. Neither was very efficient. The Pacers need better shooters and they need some slashers but mostly they need some shooters to make teams pay for packing the middle.
Roy can do better but unfortunately Mahinmi will never be an offensive threat. With Copeland and Rudez and hopefully a better PG that can be improved upon.

[McKeyFan]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

Question: with Waiters and Irving at odds and Cleveland open to another 2 guard, might Lance have found himself in contention for a spot on Cleveland had he not been such a thorn in Lebron's side?

[BlueNGold]

Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

He's basing it on looking at Lance's defense in it's entirety. You're right, Lance is a plus defender on the ball. In fact, Lance is very good on the ball and very good at containing penetration where he can utilize his strength and his length. He's definitely better at guarding bigger SF's than he is 2-guards where he can utilize his strength more and more.

He is not quite as good against players that have a good second, or even 3rd offensive move - as his lack of lateral quickness hurts him here (see D.Wade) He also struggles against guys that spot up, move off the ball, and/or can spread the floor - as he tends to ball watch so that he can get into position to rebound.

He's also not a guy that creates turnovers, blocks shots, etc.

So what you have is a very very good on the ball defender, an un-disciplined off the ball defender, and a guy that doesn't create turnovers. Eleazar seems to believe (and I could be wrong) that Lance's off the ball defense averages out his on-ball defense - which equates to an average defender.

Just my $0.02

I generally agree with this, but it's a little unfair talking about Lance's defense when he is inevitably compared to Paul George who may be the best overall wing defender in the league. Nobody is in the passing lanes like Paul. In reality, Hill might even be a better defender overall but Lance is still above average. People need to realize that we had the best D in the entire league last year and all of these guys are above or well above average on D. That includes West and Hibbert.

[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.

[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

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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.