Pacers Stomped by Hawks/Imploding

[KGs Knee]

I wouldn't consider Toronto a particularly easy match up. The Nets, Toronto, and Miami have been the best 3 EC teams the past 30 games or so with the Bulls being the fourth best.

I do think just winning a playoff series would do wonders for that team.

Well, like I said, I think if Indy can win their 1st round series they'll get their confidence and swag back, and stop doubting themselves and pressing so hard. It interesting, basically the only good game they've had recently was against Miami. Which is why I think this mostly mental for them. The one game they just wanted to win so badly, and had a real chip on their shoulders about, inspired them to play much more together and purpose.

[KGs Knee]

But I also wouldn't be surprised if they go further south, and booted from the 1st round. They really need to get their stuff together. Someone needs to step up and get this team on the same page.

Also, George needs to be a little more focused on the offensive end on just letting the game come to him.      He seems a bit out of sorts. Which also brings to note, he too also had one of his only good games against Miami. Almost like they stopped taking the other Eastern teams seriously.

[D.o.s.]

And, actually, I think Roy's theory is totally bogus, and only holds water if, indeed, Indiana is a first or second round exit because of a meltdown.

Well, in the span of four seasons, we've seen two teams that were leading the NBA in wins make trade deadline trades involving a team leader.  In both of those instances, the team making the trade went into a pretty severe tailspin.

The Celtics were 41-14 before the Perk trade, and went 15-12 the rest of the way.

The Pacers were 41-13 before the Granger trade, and have gone 13-11 since.

Neither Perk nor Granger was contributing much before the trade, but when you take that strong veteran presence out of the locker room, I think it disrupts chemistry.  When you break up your team -- even in an attempt to get better -- it's going to inevitably lead to some different chemistry, and potentially fractures.

That's true, but I think that in the Celtics case it was largely because neither Shaq nor JO could stay healthy. I also give more chemistry credence to the C's because they just looked miserable.

Indiana's playing badly, but I don't believe their on-the-court struggles will remain this blatant.

[pearljammer10]

My theory is that this is similar to the Celts trading Perk in 2011.

On paper, the Turner / Granger trade made all kinds of sense for the Pacers.  The team filled a perceived need (in this case, bench scoring), and the guy they gave up (Granger) wasn't contributing very much.

Much like with the Celtics, though, the Pacers have gone through a fairly immediate tailspin right after the deal.  Granger was a career Pacer (much like Perk was a career Celtic) who was revered in the locker room.  He was a mentor for a lot of the younger guys.

Granger and George were close, and bringing Turner on board probably made Stephenson a bit insecure about his replacement.  Larry unknowingly through a chemistry bomb into that locker room (made worse by the Andrew Bynum acquisition), and it's unlikely that the Pacers find their spark again.

Perfect synopsis. This is what happens when management preaches "team" and then turns around & trades the longest tenured player there.

I really hope they get it together and beat Miami though.

Yeah its hard to argue against this one. Pacers were 41 and 13 when they traded Granger for Turner. Since then they are 12 - 12.

[PhoSita]

That's true, but I think that in the Celtics case it was largely because neither Shaq nor JO could stay healthy. I also give more chemistry credence to the C's because they just looked miserable.

Yeah, I always felt that the chemistry thing with the Perk trade was overblown.  The main problem with the trade is that Danny Ainge was basically gambling that between JO, Shaq, and KG the team could get 48 high quality minutes at the center position every night.  Fine in theory, since the team was actually monstrously effective on both ends with a healthy Shaq.  But Shaq and JO were never fully healthy at the same time (and Shaq was basically toast after the first couple months of the season).

[D.o.s.]

Yup.

Fun read from Zach Lowe:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-fix-the-pacers/

When the locker room opened, Paul George and Roy Hibbert were seated next to each other, having a loud argument about the team’s crumbling offense. George complained that Hibbert was posting up at the wrong times, getting in everyone’s way. Hibbert was saying something about getting touches. They kept at it in front of the few reporters that had walked in right away. They were mad, but the discussion was civil. It looked like the kind of talk a mentally strong team should have during a bad streak. I didn’t think much of it.

But the Pacers have collapsed since then, and their offense, long the team’s weak link, has reached a point at which it might disqualify them from title contention. These Pacers have never been a good offensive team. They ranked 19th in points per possession last season, and even at their best this season, they topped out around average. They lack the mechanisms to create easy shots at the rim.

Everyone knows the rest of the key problems. The team’s offensive rebounding, a crucial strength last season, has fallen away; Tyler Hansbrough’s blind rampages now happen in Canada and Hibbert isn’t producing nearly as many extra possessions. George’s shooting has regressed past the expected mean and into some netherworld.

The team can’t stop turning the ball over or throw effective entry passes. Luis Scola is in major decline. David West hasn’t been the same player, and when the Pacers face a team against which West can’t bully his way to easy points, they are in trouble. C.J. Watson’s absence has been an underrated factor. He was a key stabilizer on bench-heavy units, working as a threatening off-ball shooter as Lance Stephenson ran the show. The starting lineup with Watson in George Hill’s place remains Indiana’s third most-used unit, and nobody guards his replacement, Donald Sloan.

[Who]

Evan Turner has been very bad for them. Needs to much of the ball (taking shots from others) and has been inefficient/ineffective with those shots/touches. Indy has too many hands to feed. Lack of a playmaking PG continues to hurt them. Bigs aren't getting enough touches. Just cutting Turner from the rotation and spreading out his touches/shots to the other starters would make everybody happier.

Then next step is getting their guards (G.Hill, L.Stephenson) to execute the offense a bit better and make sure the big men are more involved in the game. Which I think they'll do well enough once the playoffs start. Indy is built to succeed in the playoffs and has good experience (and a strong defensive/rebounding backbone) to fall back on.

I think their problems are fairly minor.

[nickagneta]

I think they realized they couldn't win it all and decided to tank for a better draft position.

I mean, that is what you are supposed to do once you know you can't win a title, right?

[D.o.s.]

Evan Turner has been very bad for them. Needs to much of the ball (taking shots from others) and has been inefficient/ineffective with those shots/touches. Indy has too many hands to feed. Lack of a playmaking PG continues to hurt them. Bigs aren't getting enough touches. Just cutting Turner from the rotation and spreading out his touches/shots to the other starters would make everybody happier.

Per the eye test, I agree with you, but, per that Lowe article (which is seriously stacked with facts and figures, as his usually are):

 

If you’re looking for evidence of stickiness, you won’t easily find it. The Pacers are passing the ball about 300 times per game, right around their pre-February figure, per Spor**** data provided to Grantland. They are collectively running the same distance, suggesting any decline in cutting has been negligible. They’re taking about the same number of contested shots per game as they were early in the season, according to that Spor**** data; they’re just missing far more of them.

So I'm not sure that's as much of an issue as it looks to be.

Also, TP Nick -- you've solved the mystery.

[fairweatherfan]

And, actually, I think Roy's theory is totally bogus, and only holds water if, indeed, Indiana is a first or second round exit because of a meltdown.

Well, in the span of four seasons, we've seen two teams that were leading the NBA in wins make trade deadline trades involving a team leader.  In both of those instances, the team making the trade went into a pretty severe tailspin.

The Celtics were 41-14 before the Perk trade, and went 15-12 the rest of the way.

The Pacers were 41-13 before the Granger trade, and have gone 13-11 since.

Neither Perk nor Granger was contributing much before the trade, but when you take that strong veteran presence out of the locker room, I think it disrupts chemistry.  When you break up your team -- even in an attempt to get better -- it's going to inevitably lead to some different chemistry, and potentially fractures.

That's true, but I think that in the Celtics case it was largely because neither Shaq nor JO could stay healthy. I also give more chemistry credence to the C's because they just looked miserable.

Indiana's playing badly, but I don't believe their on-the-court struggles will remain this blatant.

Also our struggles in 10-11 were basically a shorter version of the same problems we had the year before with Perk on the team. 

[CelticG1]

How did the 2010 finals Celtics finish their season?

[Fafnir]

How did the 2010 finals Celtics finish their season?

Played .500 ball 22-22 or something like that.

Of course they had multiple injuries to KG/PP. Pacers have largely been healthy from what I recall.

[PhoSita]

You know, there have been a lot of people on the Paul George bandwagon for a while now, but I can't help wondering . . . how much worse would the Pacers be if you swapped George for Rudy Gay?  How much better would the Kings be?  Would it actually make an enormous difference?

Paul George is undoubtedly a much better defender than Gay.  But despite his gaudy points per game average, I'm not convinced he's actually that good a scorer.  At least not yet.  Gay is definitely a more polished scorer.  And I wonder if the lack of consistent defense is due in part to the fact that he's never had the privilege of being coached by somebody like Frank Vogel.

[Fafnir]

You know, there have been a lot of people on the Paul George bandwagon for a while now, but I can't help wondering . . . how much worse would the Pacers be if you swapped George for Rudy Gay?  How much better would the Kings be?  Would it actually make an enormous difference?

Paul George is undoubtedly a much better defender than Gay.  But despite his gaudy points per game average, I'm not convinced he's actually that good a scorer.  At least not yet.  Gay is definitely a more polished scorer.  And I wonder if the lack of consistent defense is due in part to the fact that he's never had the privilege of being coached by somebody like Frank Vogel.

Much worse.

George being a better 3-point shooter and defender is huge for making the Pacers work overall. Now clearly right now they're having issues but those issues would be even worse with Gay.

Gay needs space in the lane/paint to work and that space is largely occupied for the Pacers.

[PhoSita]

You know, there have been a lot of people on the Paul George bandwagon for a while now, but I can't help wondering . . . how much worse would the Pacers be if you swapped George for Rudy Gay?  How much better would the Kings be?  Would it actually make an enormous difference?

Paul George is undoubtedly a much better defender than Gay.  But despite his gaudy points per game average, I'm not convinced he's actually that good a scorer.  At least not yet.  Gay is definitely a more polished scorer.  And I wonder if the lack of consistent defense is due in part to the fact that he's never had the privilege of being coached by somebody like Frank Vogel.

Much worse.

George being a better 3-point shooter and defender is huge for making the Pacers work overall. Now clearly right now they're having issues but those issues would be even worse with Gay.

Gay needs space in the lane/paint to work and that space is largely occupied for the Pacers.

Hm, perhaps you're right about the "fit," although George is such a streaky shooter that he clearly isn't helping them much with offensive efficiency these days.

I guess it just doesn't seem to me that Paul George is actually nearly as good, yet, as some have made him out to be.  Gay, for his part, is a flawed player who at one point was overrated, but now is severely underrated because he's been stuck on bad teams.  So while they are by no means the same player, I think their value as high-usage small forwards is much closer than the common perception would suggest.

I just looked up and down that Kings roster -- they have ZERO depth.  Put even a halfway decent supporting cast around Thomas, Gay, and Cousins, and I think they'll be a .500 or better team next season.

I don't know what the Pacers need to do to fix their offense.  When George is hitting it from outside and Hibbert is finishing inside, they're a really good team on both ends.  But Hibbert and George are so inconsistent offensively, it's tough.  They've tried adding offensive-minded bench players (much like the Celtics did during the Big 3 era), but it's hard to fix major weaknesses of your starting lineup by adding bench players.