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

Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

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

  • #16
    Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

    Originally posted by maragin View Post
    Seth, if you have the info, what are the splits for first half of season vs second half?

    Also, pre-trade and post trade would be worth looking at.
    I will kill you.

    Seriously, I don't think there is an easy way to farm that trade portion out except by hand. It's in the game logs and if I had a way to SQL them it might not be bad, but otherwise it looks like I'd have to use a half split and then remove by hand the stats from the non-trade games. I'll probably end up doing it.


    Peck - I didn't put up THREE POINT SHOOTING. Ike vs Saras for chrissake, come on man, you aren't really trying to call that the same threat are you?

    Al, better 3pt shooter than Troy.
    Saras vs Ike from 3...good one.
    And sadly for the Jack-is-satan crowd, after NOV Jack turned into the better 3pt threat vs Dun.


    Jack vs Dun from 3 (TOTAL) .297 vs .283...and after NOV I've posted it elsewhere that Jack was much higher than .297. He was 34.6 in DEC and 35.3 in JAN. So you dumped a guy shooting 35% from 3 for a guy who was going ice cold from the arc, 28%.

    Save the "but you can't throw out that ONE month". I sure as hell can when the ENTIRE SEASON the previous year also backs the results this year outside of that one month. Jack is a 34-36% guy, so that sub 30 was WAY out of character. Dun had a good year 2 seasons ago, but last year was poor from 3. He appears to have totally lost that shot which makes NOV for him seem out of place.

    Dunleavy was 28.5% for ALL of last season. So which is normal for him, 28 or 40? Jack was 34.5 last year, so which was normal this year, all the 34-35 months or the sub-30 NOV?

    I don't deny the hot start for Dun in GS or the terrible start for Jack, though the dude was hit by a freaking car, but the Pacers just got the roto baseball special. Trade a guy who started hotter right when he goes cold to get a guy who starts slow and finishes better.

    Not too saavy IMO.

    Troy vs AL - 40.9 vs 45.8...I think people forgot just how hot Al was from 3 all year (he kept it up in GS). And Al carried that rate while shooting 3.3 per to Troy's 2.1...bigger impact, more makes per game from 3.

    Ike isn't a 3pt guy, Saras shot it 37.2%.


    So TPHB brilliantly closed in the perimeter EVEN MORE with the trade and made it possible for guys to triple team JO before the pass even got there, simply because they didn't have to defend the arc as much after the trade.

    ie, you are confused.


    PS - once upon a time Dun could make a 3, maybe he will find it again. But it has been 2 seasons in a row now and that should bring up some concerns.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

      One other note, talk about streaky from 3. Troy was 50% in Feb, 24% in March, 54% in April. (10 games, 16 games, 10 games) Yeesh.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        I will kill you.

        Seriously, I don't think there is an easy way to farm that trade portion out except by hand. It's in the game logs and if I had a way to SQL them it might not be bad, but otherwise it looks like I'd have to use a half split and then remove by hand the stats from the non-trade games. I'll probably end up doing it.


        Peck - I didn't put up THREE POINT SHOOTING. Ike vs Saras for chrissake, come on man, you aren't really trying to call that the same threat are you?

        Al, better 3pt shooter than Troy.
        Saras vs Ike from 3...good one.
        And sadly for the Jack-is-satan crowd, after NOV Jack turned into the better 3pt threat vs Dun.


        Jack vs Dun from 3 (TOTAL) .297 vs .283...and after NOV I've posted it elsewhere that Jack was much higher than .297. He was 34.6 in DEC and 35.3 in JAN. So you dumped a guy shooting 35% from 3 for a guy who was going ice cold from the arc, 28%.

        Save the "but you can't throw out that ONE month". I sure as hell can when the ENTIRE SEASON the previous year also backs the results this year outside of that one month. Jack is a 34-36% guy, so that sub 30 was WAY out of character. Dun had a good year 2 seasons ago, but last year was poor from 3. He appears to have totally lost that shot which makes NOV for him seem out of place.

        Dunleavy was 28.5% for ALL of last season. So which is normal for him, 28 or 40? Jack was 34.5 last year, so which was normal this year, all the 34-35 months or the sub-30 NOV?

        I don't deny the hot start for Dun in GS or the terrible start for Jack, though the dude was hit by a freaking car, but the Pacers just got the roto baseball special. Trade a guy who started hotter right when he goes cold to get a guy who starts slow and finishes better.

        Not too saavy IMO.

        Troy vs AL - 40.9 vs 45.8...I think people forgot just how hot Al was from 3 all year (he kept it up in GS). And Al carried that rate while shooting 3.3 per to Troy's 2.1...bigger impact, more makes per game from 3.

        Ike isn't a 3pt guy, Saras shot it 37.2%.


        So TPHB brilliantly closed in the perimeter EVEN MORE with the trade and made it possible for guys to triple team JO before the pass even got there, simply because they didn't have to defend the arc as much after the trade.

        ie, you are confused.


        PS - once upon a time Dun could make a 3, maybe he will find it again. But it has been 2 seasons in a row now and that should bring up some concerns.

        Um, if you'll notice I left Ike vs. Saras toatally out of the 3pt. shootint equiation.

        All of this part of your post still doesn't clarify for me taking 2 pt. fg% and ppg. how we get J.O. having lack of options after the trade?


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

          Peck, are you saying that teams pay as much attention to Dunleavy and Murphy as Jackson and Al?
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

            While we're dumping on JO, He's shot .445 over the last four seasons and missed an average of 22 games a season.
            I'm in these bands
            The Humans
            Dr. Goldfoot
            The Bar Brawlers
            ME

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

              Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
              Peck, are you saying that teams pay as much attention to Dunleavy and Murphy as Jackson and Al?
              What I'm asking is, how can we use the excuse that J.O. is shooting worse because there are no weapons around him.

              Dunleavy is avg. the same ppg. than Jackson did while he was with the team and Mike in theory is the third option behind Granger just like Jax was behind Al.

              Murphy is avg. less ppg. than Al but it's not like Al avg. 20 and Troy avg. 5, in theory there is a 2 buckets and a free throw's worth of differance however Troy is not option # 2 like Al was. Troy is option 4 or 5. In fact you really need to factor Danny vs. Al into the equation.

              Look this isn't about Troy, Danny, Al, Jax, etc.

              This is about giving J.O. any kind of excuse for his God awful fg%.

              I would venture to say that 80% of our offense when J.O. is on the floor runs through him (that doesn't mean he takes 80% of the shots it just means that the goal is to get it to him in the post and see what happens) so with that kind of % I just wonder why everybody always thinks his 19ppg makes him some form of superstar. Wouldn't mid 20's be more like it?

              Oh well, I'm a well known J.O. basher so just forget I even mentioned it.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                Here are JO's NBA rankings as listed by NBA.com


                * Ranks #3 in the NBA in Blocks Per Game(2.64)
                * Ranks #15 in the NBA in Field-Goal Attempts Per 48 Minutes(22.27)
                * Ranks #31 in the NBA in Field Goals Made(498.0)
                * Ranks #18 in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts(1141.0)
                * Ranks #28 in the NBA in Points Per 48 Minutes(26.1)
                * Ranks #25 in the NBA in Field Goals Per 48 Minutes(9.72)
                * Ranks #21 in the NBA in Free Throws Per 48 Minutes(6.7)
                * Ranks #21 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts Per 48 Minutes(8.73)
                * Ranks #26 in the NBA in Free Throws(343.0)
                * Ranks #21 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts(447.0)
                * Ranks #13 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per 48 Minutes(9.9)
                * Ranks #34 in the NBA in Rebounds Per 48 Minutes(12.9)
                * Ranks #6 in the NBA in Blocks Per 48 Minutes(3.55)
                * Ranks #26 in the NBA in Total Turnovers(203.0)
                * Ranks #26 in the NBA in Total Efficiency Points(1449.0)
                * Ranks #28 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking(21.0)
                * Ranks #26 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes(28.28)
                * Ranks #19 in the NBA in Turnovers Per Game(2.94)
                * Ranks #20 in the NBA in Turnovers Per 48 Minutes(3.96)
                * Ranks #47 in the NBA in Minutes Per Game(35.6)
                * Ranks #40 in the NBA in Offensive Rebounds(153.0)
                * Ranks #15 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds(508.0)
                * Ranks #10 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per Game(7.4)
                * Ranks #20 in the NBA in Total Rebounds(661.0)
                * Ranks #4 in the NBA in Blocks(182.0)
                * Ranks #37 in the NBA in Points(1339.0)
                * Ranks #14 in the NBA in Double-doubles(34.0)
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  What I'm asking is, how can we use the excuse that J.O. is shooting worse because there are no weapons around him.

                  Dunleavy is avg. the same ppg. than Jackson did while he was with the team and Mike in theory is the third option behind Granger just like Jax was behind Al.

                  Murphy is avg. less ppg. than Al but it's not like Al avg. 20 and Troy avg. 5, in theory there is a 2 buckets and a free throw's worth of differance however Troy is not option # 2 like Al was. Troy is option 4 or 5. In fact you really need to factor Danny vs. Al into the equation.

                  Look this isn't about Troy, Danny, Al, Jax, etc.

                  This is about giving J.O. any kind of excuse for his God awful fg%.

                  I would venture to say that 80% of our offense when J.O. is on the floor runs through him (that doesn't mean he takes 80% of the shots it just means that the goal is to get it to him in the post and see what happens) so with that kind of % I just wonder why everybody always thinks his 19ppg makes him some form of superstar. Wouldn't mid 20's be more like it?

                  Oh well, I'm a well known J.O. basher so just forget I even mentioned it.
                  I see your reasoning and agree with most of it. We're just a different team when JO is in the game. As you say, the vast majority of our offense has to go through him. If he was hitting 55% like some big men, it wouldn't be such a big deal but he doesn't and it is.
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                    This is really why I am not a big JO fan. He struggles to get it in the basket for being such an all-star big man. This has always been the case...since the days when Kenyon Martin used to shut his soft a$$ down in the post.

                    The following list contains some names that are not as talented as JO, but they are largely his peers in the east...guys around 7ft who can score the ball....avg in double figures. Almost all of them are more efficient than our 18M+/yr franchise player.

                    Bosh - 49.6
                    Dalembert - 54.1
                    Curry - 57.6
                    Al Jefferson -51.4
                    R. Wallace - 42.4
                    Ilgauskas - 48.6
                    Gooden - 47.3
                    Bogut - 55.3
                    Shaq - 59.1
                    Haslem - 49.2
                    D. Howard - 60.2
                    Okafer - 53.2
                    Pachulia - 47.4

                    JO might be better than most of these players, but I seriously question whether you want your franchise player being so inefficient on offense. I would prefer our most talented player be a guard. Look at DWade, MJ, Kobe.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I would prefer our most talented player be a guard. Look at DWade, MJ, Kobe.
                      Actually i would prefer to build around a PG. When a good/great and smart PG can't hit for a while, he still can contribute much on offense by playmaking, leadership, assists. Imho PG is at better position to influence game flow and organize a teamwork.
                      I'm really sorry because of my english (which is my 3-4 language) and I really appreciate Your patience. I hope this board will make me better

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                        & we have Tinsley to influence game flow and organize a teamwork.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                          This is a good topic, thanks to Seth for and others for doing the statistical legwork for the rest of us.

                          As I see it, the low shooting percentage for JO doesnt necessarily come from a lack of ability or some fundamental flaw in his game, although he certainly has some weaknesses in my view in this area (lack of a "go to" move, inability to hold post position deeply, a hitch/hesitation at his jump shot release point etc etc), but it comes from one central point: JO takes too many difficult and guarded shots, and not enough easy ones.

                          That isnt necessarily a criticism of JO directly. It comes from a lack of a skilled penetrator to draw the defense and kick it to him for easy dunks, it comes from the Pacers offensive design being to willing to play half court, therefore giving the defense time to set up to guard him, and it comes from facing automatic double teams due to the Pacers lack of shooters and playing offensively inept players. JO doesnt get the EASY baskets other guys do in order to raise his comparitive shooting percentage.

                          Comparing just to Bosh, for example, who is a player I believe has a comparable game. Bosh has TJ Ford and Jose Calderon creating chances for him by penetrating in half court sets and in screen/roll situations. Bosh also runs the floor and gives himself some fast break chances to score easily, which is something JO doesnt bother to do/isnt able to do anymore it seems.

                          Basically, nobody helps off of anybody on our roster, which means JO faces a set defense each time he gets the ball. Teams play our perimeter guys to finish plays themselves (leading to Tinsleys floater for example) instead of leaving JO to block a shot. This is a big area of concern Marquis Daniels was supposed to help with, but failed to do so.

                          This isnt meant to exonerate JO from blame however. He chooses to be a guy who walks up the floor at times and doesnt push himself to establish quick early position. He is the one who didnt like playing at the high post some early in the season when we were posting other guys at times. And he is the one who has failed each summer to establish a true "pet move" which he makes at a higher percentage.

                          Like most stats, the numbers only tell part of the story. The context is important too.

                          Just my opinion, of course.

                          Tbird

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                            I think it boils down to the fact that JO just doesn't run or jump like he used to.

                            In an interview with Jim Rome early this season he admitted that after 10 plus years in the league he has "situational hops" and he's had to try to change his game because of it. Said he's not trying to dunk everything and tries to score without extending his body as much as he used to. Talked about redefining his jumpshot by adding range out to 17-18 feet and about being able to put the ball on the floor.

                            He got swatted down low more than his share of times when he could jump, and his eroding physical gifts make it even more difficult down there. Unfortunately he's not crafty enough in the post to make up for it yet (ie a "pet move" (how about a jump hook?)) and most every play called for him ends up with him stationary with his back to the basket........
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Um, if you'll notice I left Ike vs. Saras toatally out of the 3pt. shootint equiation.

                              All of this part of your post still doesn't clarify for me taking 2 pt. fg% and ppg. how we get J.O. having lack of options after the trade?
                              I thought it was as simple as can be, you attack the defense's desire to collapse on the post by forcing them to stay honest at the arc.

                              WTF does PPG have to do with it? Hey, JO put up PPG so I guess this whole argument isn't needed, forget the 2p% since he scored a lot.

                              Look this isn't about Troy, Danny, Al, Jax, etc.

                              This is about giving J.O. any kind of excuse for his God awful fg%.
                              No, you have 100% missed the point because you jumped on your anti-JO wagon too soon. JO WAS SHOOTING BETTER. WTF happened those last few months, just a freaking accident, totally random???

                              Come on man, you know better than this. I posted the freaking numbers myself, I'm not a JO defender at any cost, I've called him out in debates with DD several times this year (usually when DD blames Rick for JO's tough games). I'm not excusing 45-46%, but 40%? Something changed to give him some of his worst shooting ever.

                              And I saw night after night JO getting double or triple teamed AS HE CAUGHT THE BALL during the last 3 months. Teams flat out were saying "we don't even give a s*** that anyone else is on the court, we totally do not respect them as serious offensive threats, we won't even wait for the ball to get to JO, we refuse to let him beat us".

                              If Dun and Troy were so great at making post guys look good, then WTF is up with Ike's FG%? Maybe it's because when you added them to the inconsistancy of Granger (youth) and the flat-out horrid Tinsley shooting (and Army while we talk PG/SG), you left the post players with virtually no OUTSIDE threat to counter with. And a one-dimensional offensive threat is a piece of cake to shut down.

                              And on top of all that, I believe I ALSO MENTIONED his injury as a factor in the change. I can't get over you on this issue, you so dislike JO that it's not even enough for a neutral interest like me to point out his bad shooting (and list his attempts to boot), not if I even dare mention that the change to the team might have had an impact. And I listed strong factual results to back the view that the team took a hit in 3pt threats with the trade. All 3 new players were WORST 3pt shooters than the guys that left, and by roughly 5% if you consider how Jack shot his last couple of months in Indy and the previous season.



                              I think Rat has it nailed. I was watching some footage of him about 3-4 years ago and he was just quicker. Granted he's been injured the last few years and clearly that had something to do with his last month or so of shooting, but I wonder if even beyond that if he isn't more like a 34 year old PF at this point.

                              T'Bird made some strong points too.
                              Originally posted by T'Bird
                              As I see it, the low shooting percentage for JO doesnt necessarily come from a lack of ability or some fundamental flaw in his game, although he certainly has some weaknesses in my view in this area (lack of a "go to" move, inability to hold post position deeply, a hitch/hesitation at his jump shot release point etc etc), but it comes from one central point: JO takes too many difficult and guarded shots, and not enough easy ones.

                              That isnt necessarily a criticism of JO directly. It comes from a lack of a skilled penetrator to draw the defense and kick it to him for easy dunks, it comes from the Pacers offensive design being to willing to play half court, therefore giving the defense time to set up to guard him, and it comes from facing automatic double teams due to the Pacers lack of shooters and playing offensively inept players. JO doesnt get the EASY baskets other guys do in order to raise his comparitive shooting percentage.
                              BTW, I sincerely didn't make the first post to rip on JO. I just wondered what "worst FG% in the NBA" looked like after it was all over. I wasn't surprised by most of the numbers since I check them all the time, but I hadn't realized how poorly JO had finished.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Team FG% review (2 pointers only)

                                I thought it was as simple as can be, you attack the defense's desire to collapse on the post by forcing them to stay honest at the arc.

                                WTF does PPG have to do with it? Hey, JO put up PPG so I guess this whole argument isn't needed, forget the 2p% since he scored a lot.


                                Um, no.

                                Another way to keep defenses honest is by having multiple options available to players on the floor with drives, mid range shots and yes three point shots.

                                However your statement of "He was running 46% the first few months and got much worse post-trade which could be tied to the lack of other threats" which when I read this I tied to this statement from your first post "I'm just listing the 2pt FG% simply to look at it".

                                I was trying to figure out how you put the two together. However if you are now talking three point shots, which I am not sure when you decided to switch to this, then ok. I did compare the three point shooting and I agree the other players were better from the arc. However I just don't believe they are that much better and again you have to factor Granger into this equation.

                                Oh btw, nice touch telling us how every other team in the NBA thinks about guarding Jermaine. I could easily argue that the other teams know that it is useless to guard the other players because they will never see the ball other than to make another entry pass into the post. But then, I'm not going to pretend that I know what other teams think. More power to you.

                                But I'm sure this is going to go nowhere. So much like Earl this is just how we will live our lives now so let's just move on.


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X