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

Some Love for the Three

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

  • #76
    Re: Some Love for the Three

    While I appreciate the time and effort placed into this by Putnam and others I want to point out what the charts/graphs/stats/etc. don't show.

    1. What shots were available at the time the three point shot was taken?

    2. Was the long shot the first option by design or was this player decision.

    3. How forceful is O'Brien in assuring that the team probes and explores an interior shot or driving lanes.

    4. How many plays and audibles did the team run before taking the three point shot?

    5. How many fouls were not drawn on the defense by taking a distance shot?

    As I've stated several times, it's not the three point shot in and of itself that is the problem. It is shot selection, which I blame on coaching but others can reasonably argue is the fault of the players.

    Not very far behind shot selection on the problem meter is the lack of fouls we draw on other teams. We are constantly being out shot from the free throw line thus giving our opponents 4 more shots a game. Not to mention the fact that we do not get other teams players in foul trouble while often times we are the ones seeing our players get into late foul trouble.

    Last season opponents shot 326 more free throws which was a vast improvement over the season before when they shot 541 more than we did and the season before when they shot 401 more than we did.

    Rush shot a whopping 89 free throws last year which I've griped at before but Murphy only shot 193 himself.

    I think that O’Brien’s pace of the game plus his general short rotation of players ends up with more injuries and more fatigue fouls than what we might have if we either slowed down the pace on occasion or deepened the bench. I would prefer a deeper bench myself but if not then slowing it down for a play or two is not going to harm anything.

    These are things that I think really have to factor into the discussion as well.


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

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Some Love for the Three

      Originally posted by Peck View Post

      I think that O’Brien’s pace of the game plus his general short rotation of players ends up with more injuries and more fatigue fouls than what we might have if we either slowed down the pace on occasion or deepened the bench. I would prefer a deeper bench myself but if not then slowing it down for a play or two is not going to harm anything.

      These are things that I think really have to factor into the discussion as well.
      Couple of comments.

      As you know I am not a stats guy, but there were a few threads over the past three years which I thought de-bunked the theory that Jim plays his best players too many minutes. In fact if I remember correctly, he has a more liberal rotation than most coaches. So even if a strain to see your point about a short rotation - I still cannot see any truth to that. (do players get tired? sure, but players get tired throughout the NBA and this coach uses his bench pretty liberally.

      The things you mention as a whole are all good points (except the short rotations) but they are difficult to quantify

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Some Love for the Three

        I like for coaches to have short rotations. In the playoffs, the eighth man gets to play maybe a dozen minutes and the ninth man never takes off his warmup. Of course, on our roster last season, we were starting a bunch of 7th, 8th, men for a playoff quality roster, so I digress...

        Anyway, I think O'Brien's rotations are too long. But again, since our starters (last season) generally aren't all that good they don't exactly scream, "LEAVE ME ON THE COURT!"

        If our third PG (either Price or Ford, depending on when Price gets healthy) sees any time this season, its a major problem because it means Collison isn't playing 40mpg for whatever reason.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Some Love for the Three

          Yeah, I would like to see Granger and Collison play 38-39 minutes in close games. That would put their average around 36 minutes or so because averages drop due to blowouts, or the occasional foul trouble. Beyond that I would like to and hope to see Hibbert play around 30 minutes in close games. After that who knows what we have, I fear not too much

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Some Love for the Three

            Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
            First of all, he doesn’t need to beat his man up the floor. Early offense is a great time to post up, when the defense is trying to stop the ball and the least organized part of the defense is on the weak side and the help in general; Roy can hit cutters as well as make a move himself.
            I love this point. This is why I hate Rick Carlisle's system. Even if it was a high-percentage system. I thought the team could have been much more aggressive about finding high-percentage shots early in the shot clock. The defense knew that if we made a shot with more than, say, 14 seconds on the shotclock that Carlisle would be angry, so they saved all their defensive effort for the last ten seconds of the shotclock anyway.

            As for pace, I also agree with your points. I've mentioned a number of times over the years on PD that the Showtime-era Lakers were a great defensive team because they forced a low DefFG% on jump shots taken early in the shot clock and the long rebounds led to fast-break opportunites.

            Forcing your opponent to take the shot you want them to take is good defense, period. Regardless of the pace. Since the 1980s, the defense in the NBA isn't necessarily better, but the pace has slowed down considerably and the lower scores have been falsely attributed to better defense.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Some Love for the Three

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Yeah, I would like to see Granger and Collison play 38-39 minutes in close games. That would put their average around 36 minutes or so because averages drop due to blowouts, or the occasional foul trouble. Beyond that I would like to and hope to see Hibbert play around 30 minutes in close games. After that who knows what we have, I fear not too much
              Well, I'd like Hibbert at about 36mpg. But you're right. After those three... and with our SG woes and without clarity into our plans at the other forward position (Mike, Tyler, Posey and even perhaps George could all be in the mix) then who knows?

              The success of the 2010-11 Pacers is entirely on whether the "big three" of Collison - Granger- Hibbert are good enough to win 41 games. I hope they stay healthy so we can find out.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Some Love for the Three

                I like that the 3 players we see as key, two are at Center and Point.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Some Love for the Three

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                  I like for coaches to have short rotations. In the playoffs, the eighth man gets to play maybe a dozen minutes and the ninth man never takes off his warmup. Of course, on our roster last season, we were starting a bunch of 7th, 8th, men for a playoff quality roster, so I digress...

                  Anyway, I think O'Brien's rotations are too long. But again, since our starters (last season) generally aren't all that good they don't exactly scream, "LEAVE ME ON THE COURT!"

                  If our third PG (either Price or Ford, depending on when Price gets healthy) sees any time this season, its a major problem because it means Collison isn't playing 40mpg for whatever reason.
                  Can you clarify long vs. short as used here, because I see some conflict? I infer from the first paragraph that you're using number of players regularly played, ie - 7 or 8 men = short, 9 or 10 men = long.

                  The second paragraph seems to indicates that the rotations themselves (amount of time on the floor) are too long, but I may be mistaken.

                  In other words, does your second paragraph mean that O'Brien uses too many players, or leaves them on the floor too long (which would imply the opposite)?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Some Love for the Three

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Well, I'd like Hibbert at about 36mpg...
                    I would too. I love a short rotation, but the problem is that we play at too high of a pace for some players to sustain heavy minutes. We can blame it on conditioning, but I don't think that's it.

                    How many seasons in a row now have we seen our players completely gassed about 15 games into the season? He should be (a) lengthening the rotation so our players reach their optimum output or (b) changing the pace so our best players aren't too winded to defend.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Some Love for the Three

                      I don't like "long rotations" mainly because it can hurt on floor chemistry and I also like with very rare exceptions a rotation like Carlisle used which was pretty much minutes based as opposed to performance based. Jim uses a combo of both.

                      I think one of Rick's greatest strength as a coach is developing a bench, and the only way to do that is regular minutes each and every game, each and every half of every game.
                      I would give Rick an A+ at developing a bench. I would give Jim a B. Isiah got a D

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Some Love for the Three

                        I like structure in rotations. Larry Brown did it, but the players capabilites were more defined for sure.

                        I like how Brown would basically play the first half with defined rotation, guys going in at exactly a certain point. I think this helps chemistry and helps each player to mentally prepare for what's going to happen. If I was a player, I'd like this.

                        I also, like how Brown would substitute at the end of games for offense/defense when permitted.

                        Anyway, I think familiarity breeds chemistry. Hard to do that, granted, if you have injuries and if you don't have a clear group that deserve the minutes.

                        It's all about putting players in a position to feel confident and succeed.

                        With all of this said, if Roy doesn't start every game he's healthy enough to play, I think they are over thinking it.

                        Mini directly related rant: I don't give a damn about the Toronto's of the world in past seasons and bad match ups. You aren't contending for a Championship and you weren't the past several years. Let these guys learn.
                        Last edited by Speed; 09-01-2010, 12:13 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Some Love for the Three

                          Yeah, I realized I used that word differently. My bad.

                          Generally, I'm okay with a nine-man rotation in the regular season, knowing that it will be trimmed down in the playoffs. My rule of thumb is this:

                          Nine-man rotation in the first round
                          Eight-man rotation in the conference semis (very spotty minutes for the ninth man)
                          Seven-man rotation in the conference finals (very spoty minutes for the eighth man)
                          Six-man rotation in The Finals (very spotty minutes for the seventh and eighth men)

                          Let's face it, if you're counting on your bench to beat the best team from the other conference then you're asking too much of your bench and not enough of your starters.

                          = = = = = = =

                          In that confusing paragraph, I meant both of those things -- too many players getting into the game and then when the bench players are in the game for they're in for too long. But since our starters aren't clearly better than our backups (the point for three seasons has not been, "Rush, Hibbert, Tyler, Price etc. are better right now", but they can be much better players in the future if we develop them now), I understand how and why the rotations have been too deep, and with too many minutes going to the bench players, than I prefer.

                          = = = = = = = = =

                          Mr. "What", one problem is that certain players (Foster is the easy example, but not the only one of course) give the same production in 22 minutes as they do in 34 minutes. In that case... there's no need wearing them out by playing them more minutes on the court than their production merits.

                          = = = = = = = =

                          As for UB's last post -- I did like the fact that Rick clearly defined the roles for the bench players, but I think he overemphasized some of them. I think Rick really believes that his Mavericks will beat the Lakers in the playoffs using his role players against their starters.

                          = = = = = = =

                          My good friend that is a DIII coach uses a completely different strategy. He plays ten guys (and I keep my opinion of that to myself), but what I like about his approach is that he rolls guys in and out of the game frequently. He gives them shorter stretches on the bench to catch thier breath and then get back into the game. Just about every dead ball gives a different player a chance to catch his breath for a short period of time, instead of playing his starting five players for ten straight minutes until they're at the point of exhaustion at the same time. This allows his guys to be fresher, more aggressive, and more active at the end of each half.

                          I don't know how well it would work in the NBA game, because I don't think any coach has the balls to try it. Imagine Phil giving Kobe frequent, but short, breaks during a game. Kobe would feel disrespected and whine that he "couldn't find his rhythm) ( ) and that would be the end of it.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Some Love for the Three

                            Yes, but if you're tanking in an otherwise lost season you can lengthen the rotation to get young players meaningful minutes to develop, evaluate, or even showcase them.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Re: Some Love for the Three

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense.
                              Next week I hope that you will take on defense, where we will see the same thing.

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher the last two years than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?
                              I think that your implication is clear. First of all you can’t take seriously a claim that the Pacers were “just jacking up shots”, or just jacking up threes or whatever, or that there’s “no real offensive plan”; I’ve heard posters on here call the offense “undisciplined”, for example. Let’s get a more objective look, keeping in mind your comment about 2-pt. efficiency.

                              You might start with what O’Brien says his offense is trying to do, and then see if that is actually happening. He’s been quoted recently as saying that the most efficient shots in basketball are in the paint, the corner three, and the up-top three, and he wasn’t going to change going for those shots until someone proved different. How did the Pacers perform in close? I have stats for shots under 10 feet, for example; that’ll include a lot of post-ups as well. So what happened last year? Indiana was 12th in the league in attempts; attempts are not makes, of course, but they’re an indicator of what the design of the offense is working for.

                              An important issue is raised by people who question not only the style of the offense but the appropriateness of the players to execute it, so we also have to ask how effective the Pacers were at finishing inside ten feet: .462, seventh in the league. That part of the offense (it’s really several parts) is working well for Indiana, reflects the priorities of the coaching staff, and is having some notable success at execution.

                              Another related part of the offense that is working well will surprise a lot of people, and that is free throws. This goes together with inside shots, of course, and is supposed to be one of the main benefits of making defenders guard the arc - single coverage for drivers means the bigs have to foul more often to protect the paint. The best way to measure how much FTs are contributing to offense is one of the famous “Four Factors”: free throw makes per field goal attempt; the Pacers were 14th in the league.

                              One more tidbit that may shock people is where Indiana ranked in the percentage of and-1s per field goal attempt: Indiana was sixth in the league (their top three were Dahntay, Hibbert, and Price; didn’t count Foster).

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              But last year, the Pacers eFG% for 3-pointers dipped and fell below that of the rest of the league.
                              You mean below league mean, which was .532; the median was .525; they were 17th, at .521, tied with Boston.

                              The point was raised earlier: since they don’t shoot it better, does that mean that they shouldn’t shoot it so much? That would be a hard argument to sustain; the equivalent 2-pt. percentage would have led the NBA any year in the history of the league.

                              Look at it another way, from the point of view of defending it. Do you have to guard a player who shoots .344, for instance? Yes, of course.
                              Last edited by O'Bird; 09-06-2010, 06:50 PM. Reason: correction
                              :

                              "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                              "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                              "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Some Love for the Three

                                Who knew Jim lived in Houston during the offseason .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X