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

What is O'Brien's "System"?

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

  • #46
    Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Wow. 505%. You'd think Carlisle would have more balance in his offense.
    Oddly, that corresponds with the percentage of times down the court Carlisle flagged down the point guard and called out a play.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
      Don't forget - 2pt attempts lead to "and-1s" and trips to the line which don't show up in the standard measurement of FG%. 3pt attempts almost never lead to free throw attempts. You basically need to add FT% to 2pt% to get an accurate view of points per 2pt attempt.

      So, a crude example using Danny's stats from last year:

      Danny averaged 11.3 2pt shots per game, making 5.3 (which generated 10.6 points). He also made 5.9 free throws a game (generating 5.9 points). Assuming none of those FTs were a product of a 3pt attempt, each 2pt attempt generated 1.46 points.

      Danny averaged 7.1 3pt attempts, making 2.6 of them. This generated 1.09 points per attempt.

      Now, Granger shot 36.1% from 3 and 46.9% from 2, so he shot higher than 33% and lower than 50%. And still, its obvious that the 2pt was much more efficient.

      Now, the stats will change depending on a particular player's ability to drive to the hoop and draw contact of course. Basically, the point is: don't forget about free throws.
      The inclusion of FT's in this discussion is crucial, but I disagree with your conclusion, seemingly based on the general assumption that all FT's generated by plays inside the arc are unrelated to the 3-point shot.

      Last season, there were something like 51,000 fouls committed, and about 26,000 of them were shooting fouls. Of these shooting fouls, there were about 5,900 And-1's. There were 369 fouls committed on three point shots, excluding 4-point plays (of which there couldn't have been more than a handful.

      So, yes, the chances of being fouled while shooting a three are infinitesimal when compared to the chances of being foul shooting a two. However, fouls are created by being closer to the basket. They're created by moving, generally closer to the basket.

      This is at the core of the creation of the three - it was added to incent the offense to spread out, and to force the defense to have to go out and get them. On a smaller scale, it's the basketball equivalent of the forward pass. The threat of it opens the floor.

      The debate in football: "Do you run to set up the pass, or pass to set up the run?" is analagous to the inside-out vs. outside-in discussion in basketball. You can't answer either question unless you know what it is that you do better. It's fair to say that given a choice, you'd want to run first, and correspondingly, go inside-out first, but your choice is ultimately dictated by the talents of your roster.

      Bringing it back to your post, Danny is not a good player to choose to make your point.

      Of the 242 players who averaged 20 or more minutes last season, Danny's 3PA as a percent of FGA's was higher than three quarters of them. However, so were his FTA's as a percent of FGA's.

      Danny has no post game to speak of, and he has neither the handles nor the moves to Iso or break people's ankles. His entire offensive game is predicated on his shot, and his FTA/FGA has gone up as his 3PA/FGA has. (He went too far last year, but it's difficult to tell how much that had to do with his injury.) The fact that he can hit the three at a high percentage, and that he's willing to take them, puts his defender at a disadvantage, and has a sizable impact on his ability to draw fouls and get to the line.

      Consider this - Roy Hibbert took 71% of his shots from inside 10 feet. Danny took 32% of his shots inside 10 feet. Roy's FTA/FGA was 28.6%, while Danny's was 37.6%.

      Taking a lot of threes and shooting a lot of free throws are not mutually exclusive. Orlando shot a much higher percentage of their shots from beyond the arc than the Pacers did (35% vs. 28%) - highest in the league, Pacers 3rd - but they also had a higher FTA/FGA (34% vs. 30%). They were fourth in the league on that, while the Pacers were 15th.

      That doesn't stand as a rule (NYK was 2nd 3PA/FGA, but 28th in FTA/FGA), but it doesn't have to. You can use the three as one of your key weapons and still put pressure on the defense and create fouls. The correlation across the league is effectively zero, which you could take to mean that it neither helps you or hurts you get to the line, or that it's capable of alternately really helping you or really hurting you.

      What you cannot say is that shooting a lot of threes definitely costs you FTA's - at least not when measured against the rest of the league.


      (Side Note - Danny was fouled on 3pters 12 times last season, not counting 4pt plays, which I can't find. Only Durant (25) had more. Billups had 11, and Brandon Roy had 10.)

      (Another Side Note -

      Roy Hibbert is the single most important Pacer in the system O'Brien wants to run.

      O'Brien knows this.

      Yes, O'Brien will continue to push the pace, but that will only make Roy (or really, any reliable post presence) that much more important. The most aggressive team in the league will only get one out of every 5 shots out of transition. The Pacers will get one out of every 6 shots out of transition. That leaves a whole lot of shots to come out of the half court, and Roy will need to be the focal point of that.)

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

        I was going to make a serious post about how the 2FGA/3FGA math on the first page is flawed because it ignores the and-one opportunities (and shooting fouls on missed shots that result in 2 FTs don't show up as a FGA at all), but Count's hilarious Rick Carlisle post has completely derailed my train of thought. And FlavaDave summed it up pretty well in his post, anyway.
        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


        • #49
          Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

          I largely see your point, but this:

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Taking a lot of threes and shooting a lot of free throws are not mutually exclusive. Orlando shot a much higher percentage of their shots from beyond the arc than the Pacers did (35% vs. 28%) - highest in the league, Pacers 3rd - but they also had a higher FTA/FGA (34% vs. 30%). They were fourth in the league on that, while the Pacers were 15th.
          Needs a 6'11" 265 pound asterisk next to it. Dwight Howard has to play an enormous role in Orlando having a high FTA/FGA. I would imagine if the Pacers had him, their FTA/FGA would leap upwards as well.

          So, sure, if you've got a foul-magnet like Dwight Howard you can have your cake and eat it too, but can you when you don't have a guy like him?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

            Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
            Don't forget - 2pt attempts lead to "and-1s" and trips to the line which don't show up in the standard measurement of FG%. 3pt attempts almost never lead to free throw attempts. You basically need to add FT% to 2pt% to get an accurate view of points per 2pt attempt.
            Aha. Now we're getting into something more interesting. Your point is very well taken. I have no quibble at all with your reasoning - I agree completely; I just think that we need to add some more distinctions to it.

            Firstly, not all twos are created equal, as far as drawing fouls is concerned. Fouling the jump shooter, that faux pas that drives coaches nuts, is also "not done" on short midrange, is also "not done" on long midrange twos. What does get you FT attempts is dribble drives and cutters flashing in the lane to take a pass and post-ups (and not even all post-ups) and all the things, in other words, that get the ball or risk getting the ball to the front of the rim.

            Secondly, to get those shots you need somehow to create driving lanes, get player movement, and get the ball into the post if you've got someone who can do it (fancy that). Ball movement is essential (Chuck Daly: "Defense can't guard two things in succession.") for all of those.

            Thirdly, you've got to unpack the paint, and that's where the first distinction comes into play; NBA defenders are good at avoiding fouling jump shooters, whether they're shooting twos or threes, and the difficulty of defending shots outside of 18 feet is reduced because of the drop in accuracy. The wild card in the pack is that even though accuracy drops further as you get to the arc, you get the extra point, which makes it efficient to shoot it at a lower percentage, and even to shoot it a lot. But if it's all you do, if your guys just hang out at the arc, you're screwed - as FlavaDave is explaining. If you’re coupling that with attacking the rim, then the defense not only has a long way to go to close out, but a long way to recover as well.

            It's not inside-outside; it's not outside-inside, it's pick your poison.

            So how'd the Pacers do last season? In fact, drawing fouls and going to the line was the most effective part of their offense. That will still surprise a lot of people, some of whom were comparing the Pacers' total FT attempts to their opponents'.

            Nevertheless, it’s true: the key statistic to look at is FT makes per FG attempt. That filters turnovers and field goal accuracy out of how much the team got out of a possession - in other words: when they had scoring opportunities, how much was drawing fouls, and how much was shooting the ball?

            The Pacers were 14th in the NBA (.229), barely in the top half. That’s the best thing that the Pacers - who were turnover-prone, poor at shooting, and bad at offensive rebounding - did on offense, and the only thing at which they were above average of the four main factors.

            Looking ahead: as encouraging as the foul-drawing numbers were last year, it’s a good bet that they’ll improve next, given the new personnel.

            Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
            Now, the stats will change depending on a particular player's ability to drive to the hoop and draw contact of course. Basically, the point is: don't forget about free throws.
            I promise!

            _________
            :

            "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


            • #51
              Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

              Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
              Aha. Now we're getting into something more interesting. Your point is very well taken. I have no quibble at all with your reasoning - I agree completely; I just think that we need to add some more distinctions to it.

              Firstly, not all twos are created equal, as far as drawing fouls is concerned. Fouling the jump shooter, that faux pas that drives coaches nuts, is also "not done" on short midrange, is also "not done" on long midrange twos. What does get you FT attempts is dribble drives and cutters flashing in the lane to take a pass and post-ups (and not even all post-ups) and all the things, in other words, that get the ball or risk getting the ball to the front of the rim.

              Secondly, to get those shots you need somehow to create driving lanes, get player movement, and get the ball into the post if you've got someone who can do it (fancy that). Ball movement is essential (Chuck Daly: "Defense can't guard two things in succession.") for all of those.

              Thirdly, you've got to unpack the paint, and that's where the first distinction comes into play; NBA defenders are good at avoiding fouling jump shooters, whether they're shooting twos or threes, and the difficulty of defending shots outside of 18 feet is reduced because of the drop in accuracy. The wild card in the pack is that even though accuracy drops further as you get to the arc, you get the extra point, which makes it efficient to shoot it at a lower percentage, and even to shoot it a lot. But if it's all you do, if your guys just hang out at the arc, you're screwed - as FlavaDave is explaining. If you’re coupling that with attacking the rim, then the defense not only has a long way to go to close out, but a long way to recover as well.

              It's not inside-outside; it's not outside-inside, it's pick your poison.

              So how'd the Pacers do last season? In fact, drawing fouls and going to the line was the most effective part of their offense. That will still surprise a lot of people, some of whom were comparing the Pacers' total FT attempts to their opponents'.

              Nevertheless, it’s true: the key statistic to look at is FT makes per FG attempt. That filters turnovers and field goal accuracy out of how much the team got out of a possession - in other words: when they had scoring opportunities, how much was drawing fouls, and how much was shooting the ball?

              The Pacers were 14th in the NBA (.229), barely in the top half. That’s the best thing that the Pacers - who were turnover-prone, poor at shooting, and bad at offensive rebounding - did on offense, and the only thing at which they were above average of the four main factors.

              Looking ahead: as encouraging as the foul-drawing numbers were last year, it’s a good bet that they’ll improve next, given the new personnel.



              I promise!

              _________
              Aha. Now we begin to understand the lack of ability to more consistently seal the perimeter, leaving Roy or other interior defenders to clean up the messes of the perimeter defenders and vulnerable to foul trouble...

              In an effort not to foul the midrange shooting that is employed by other teams, the defense must be receiving instructions to bend but not break with respect to keeping opposing players from attacking the paint, but only without being so agressive as to foul them when they are in prime shooting positions. Teams with true passing games likely exploit this by passing to the midrange, leaving our guys to either attempt to recover, or our interior guys to come out a few extra feet. That leaves our guys needing to not only cover two, but often three things in succession due to rotations and weakside helps often not preanticipating what the opposition will do, which is about the only hope we have to stop teams from taking advantage of our defensive system in that reads of the offense are frequently taking too long to allow players to accurately react given the space they are required to cover in the team concept. Chuck Daly would not be pleased, I'm afraid.

              I long for the days of the early 2000's...Less team defense (or much better execution of it on the perimeter), more man-to-man and ball defense that can at least sometimes lock down the opposition now that we have more players who are better able to play athletic defense and a healthier roster overall, please...

              Unfortunately, practicing defense against our own offensive strategy is only effective against teams that employ a similar strategy, and may have lead to improper reads on the part of our players during games. Teams that are flexible in their game planning from an offensive standpoint and who have the ability to use a passing game to the spots the Pacers choose not to fully defend can overcome what the Pacers apparently do because, once again, no one can run as fast as a ball can be delivered with a crisply thrown succession of passes that lead to our players frequently being required to cover multiple attacks in succession.

              As to the FT discrepancy, yes FT's often determine the outcome of basketball games at every level, and the Pacers need to improve on that aspect of the offense by trying to actually outscore their opponents at the line more frequently. Also, an early advantage at the line can change the momentum (!) of the game and force a more adaptable team to change strategies during the course of a given game to counter that advantage. A passing based strategy that catches teams off balance and passes that lead to higher quality drives can be very effective at creating and-1 situations that have a higher likelihood of the initial shot going in, as well as creating more likelihood of getting fouls on the core of the opponents rim defenders who are often key components of their team's success on both ends of the court. That would greatly improve the offensive efficiency of both the players and the team as a whole, leading to the ultimate trump card of all statistics...more W's.

              More passing and crisp ball reversals overall to set up better driving lanes and break down the opposing defense, leading to both higher quality finishes and more FT's as well as better spacing of the court (!), please...

              We, as fans, look forward to the Pacers keeping their "Promise" protected this year, and these things would further assist those efforts, I promise...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                How is he still coaching this team? Real talk.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                  http://www.nba.com/pacers/


                  HE TALKS ABOUT IT LOL JOB LOL

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I largely see your point, but this:



                    Needs a 6'11" 265 pound asterisk next to it. Dwight Howard has to play an enormous role in Orlando having a high FTA/FGA. I would imagine if the Pacers had him, their FTA/FGA would leap upwards as well.

                    So, sure, if you've got a foul-magnet like Dwight Howard you can have your cake and eat it too, but can you when you don't have a guy like him?
                    Fair point.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                      I think sometime a few months ago Jay explained pretty nicely how the best teams and championship teams don't rely as much on the three—San Antonio, the former Pistons, etc.

                      I think maybe the defense plays cat and mouse with us throughout the game and then clamps down in the fourth quarter. At that point, we can't beat them with threes and our post game isn't good enough to get it done—in part because we don't emphasize it.

                      If you want to call that the "human element" or "motivation/momentum" that's fine. It would be interesting to see the many stats in this thread dealing with 3's vs. 2's adjusted to fourth quarter only, or even the second part of the fourth quarter.

                      I have an interesting analogy for those who play golf. In a scramble format, where both players (or all four in a foursome) hit a drive, you get to choose the best drive of the four. So, usually—especially if a guy has already hit one in the fairway—the other guys try to just kill the ball to perhaps get a longer drive for the foursome.

                      But a thoughtful golfer pointed out to me that what ends up happening is that the golfers get out of rythm. Since their taking these gigantic swings, when the approach shot comes, or your the last guy driving that nobody has hit the fairway and you just need a solid straight shot, a guy can't do it because he's been trying to clobber the ball all day with this crazy swing.

                      Back to basketball. I feel like we shoot all these threes all game long, and it works pretty well for three quarters and its fun and exciting. Then the game grinds down, we have to start working for a decent shot in the paint, and we just don't do it very well because it's not our normal pattern, our grooved routine swing, that we practice over and over again.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                        Regarding Jim O'Stubborn's overall philosophy, I didn't mind him the first year. Things went okay and Granger and Dunleavy were fun to watch.

                        The second year he started to irritate me a bit. Clearly, we needed better defense. But the thing that first started to annoy was his absolute refusal to call appropriate timouts. Jim O'Stubborn went months before giving in and calling a timeout after, say, the opponent went on a 15 point run.

                        To his credit (not eventually to his credit) he said at the end of that season that he needed defensive players. I was cool with giving him a chance to make things work. But then he ignored his new defensive players, ignored the success of the five game win streak, and gave Murphy a zillion minutes. That's when he completely lost me.

                        It wasn't that he likes the three. It's that he gave it priority over the fundamentals, i.e. good defense. It wouldn't have been as bad if he hadn't talked a big game about defense the previous season. That just made it more frustrating.

                        Despite the obvious, Jim O' Stubborn sticks to his preconceived notions, despite the overwhelming evidence and despite what he has said in the past, unless absolutely forced to do otherwise.

                        This season may be more tolerable because he has been absolutely forced to play without Troy Murphy.
                        Last edited by McKeyFan; 09-27-2010, 02:26 PM.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                          The pacers actually WERE substantially better defensively last year, we were exactly average in fact. The problem is that the offensive efficiency fell off the face of the earth.
                          Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                            DC2 was asked at media day:
                            Rank these as to your offensive strengths: Transition, Motion, Pick and Roll, one on one.


                            He replied:

                            Darren:
                            1. Transition, 2. Pick and roll, 3. One on one, 4. Motion

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

                            Coach Obrien was asked:
                            Will you adjust the offense and/or defense design to match your personnel for this year, if so, what kinds of adjustments do you anticipate?


                            He replied:

                            We adjust our offense every year based on our personnel. As an example, Roy Hibbert has had such a great summer, that I believe much of our offense will be run through him to take advantage of his low post game and also his ability to pass and shoot facing the basket from 17ft. Defensively, we will pretty much play the same type of defense with the emphasis of protecting our basket and making it difficult for people to get clear looks from the perimeter.

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



                            So I'm good with Roy be an offensive focal point, but we need to see DC2s skills accentuated as well. I guess we'll see.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: What is O'Brien's "System"?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I largely see your point, but this:

                              Needs a 6'11" 265 pound asterisk next to it. Dwight Howard has to play an enormous role in Orlando having a high FTA/FGA. I would imagine if the Pacers had him, their FTA/FGA would leap upwards as well.

                              So, sure, if you've got a foul-magnet like Dwight Howard you can have your cake and eat it too, but can you when you don't have a guy like him?
                              The Celtics in 01 lead the league in 3PA and were 5th in FT/FGA. I'm sure you can find similar stuff with other teams (Larry Brown teams with Iverson, for example).

                              Of course, Paul Pierce played a big role in that... but you always need players who are capable of drawing fouls to have a hight FT/FGA ratio. It's like that for every team, regardless of their 3pt shot propensity.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X