Posts tagged as:

Advanced Stat Talk

The Pacers’ Recent Past & Near Future: Part 3, The Core Six and What They Bring to the Table

by Kevin Hetrick on August 29, 2011 at 5:12 pm · 4 comments

(As his first contributions to 8p9s, Kevin Hetrick is digging deep into how the Pacers performed last year and what they can do to improve next season — whenever it begins. Read Part 1 and Part 2 of his series here.)

The Pacers currently have six young, quality players under contract. Each brings something to the table and building around continuity and chemistry is a good way for a small market team to gain success. Part 3 of this series offers a quick overview of these players’ pros and cons.

Five of the six players have proven to be capable of reasonably efficient, double-digit scoring in the NBA. Paul George should follow course in the near future. Most are capable rebounders and defenders. All six of these players should reasonably expect usage rates of 19%-26% and they cover an array of positions and talents.

(Stats courtesy of Basketball-Reference, 82games, BasketballValue, HoopData and ESPN.)

Danny Granger

Danny Granger will be 28 next year and has proven capable of being a quality NBA scorer. He peaked in 2008-09, with 25 points per game, a PER of 21.8, and true shooting percentage (TS%) of 58.4, (compared to NBA average for a SF of 54.2). This was great for a player using 3 out of every 10 of his team’s possessions.

Granger scored so much largely on the strength his outstanding long-distance shooting. He took 62.6% of his shots from outside of 16 feet and was an above-average shooter from mid-range and beyond; hitting a suburb 40% of his threes even while launching seven a game.

Due to minor injuries and other struggles, however, Granger has tailed off statistically. Last year, he notched 20 points per game and a PER of just 17.8. His shot distribution has not changed significantly; last year he still shot 59.7% of his shots from outside 16 feet. His free-throw attempts per field goal attempt also remain steady between 0.36 and 0.38 over the past three years.

Basically he has just become less effective as a shooter. His TS% was still slightly above average among small forwards in 2011, but his effective field goal percentage (eFG%) was below league average. He is also having increased trouble getting shots off, as 8.1% of his shots were blocked in 2010-11 (compared to 6% in 2008-09).

The amount of his field goals that were assisted has dropped from 55.7% in 2009 to 51% in 2011 (average for a SF is 65%). The proportion of Granger’s assisted shots is unexpected considering his usage rate dropped 3% from 2009 to 2011; if he’s shooting less frequently, it seems reasonable he was forcing less shots of his own creation. Instead he was scoring 3.5 assisted field goals per game last year compared to 4.7 in 2009.

When it comes to unassisted field goals, Granger has decreased only from 3.8 per game to 3.3. As discussed in Part 2, the Pacers were a very poor passing team last year. So if that could improve team-wide, thus increasing Granger’s amount of “easy” shots, perhaps his efficiency would rebound. Granger will likely never get back to his past scoring efficiency, but even last year he scored 20 points a game with an above-average TS%. This is not easy to find in a player who is a capable defender, an adequate defensive rebounder and a solid team player.

As we all now know, Granger will never be a #1 option for a contender. But he’s a high-level NBA player and the best the Pacers have available.

Roy Hibbert

Roy Hibbert has been the Pacers most promising and most disappointing player over the last two years. He stands 7’2”, weighs 280 pounds and shows flashes of offensive potential. He will only be 25-years-old next year, and over three NBA seasons has always sported an above-average PER of 16. But he also plays “soft,” disappears for stretches and had some large statistical red flags last season.

He struggled offensively with TS% (50.7%) and eFG% (46.1%) that were 5 points below average for a center. This was a decrease from 2009-10, and part of that may be due to the Pacer’s use of Hibbert.

Two years ago, Hibbert had true shooting of 53.7% with a usage rate of 22%. In both 2008-09 and 2010-11, Hibbert’s usage was approximately 23.5% and his field goal percentages were low. While surely not the only reason for the decreased efficiency, this is typical of most players; the more offense a player is expected to create (Hibbert is assisted on 54% of fields goals, an average center on 65%), the less efficiently they do it.

Furthermore, there are few centers capable of efficiently scoring at the rate the Pacers use Hibbert. Hibbert’s usage is 8% higher than average for a center, and most teams that frequently use their center have poor offenses. Last year, Hibbert had the 5th-highest usage rate among centers; the offensive ranks of the four teams above the Pacers in this category were 20th, 27th, 10th and 14th.

On the other end of the floor, Hibbert made great strides as a defensive rebounder last year, becoming an above-average rebounder for the first time in his career (28th of 60 qualifying centers). Per 40 minutes, he blocked 2.5 shots (an average center blocks 1.8 shots per 40) while only committing 4.5 fouls (the average center commits 5.8) to anchor a top-five NBA defense in FG% at the rim.

Overall, lowering Hibbert’s offensive usage to encourage increased efficiency should greatly improve his outlook as a player. Hibbert may not have the “toughness” to be as proficient as either player, but this year’s most-sought-after free agents are low-usage centers (Nene and Tyson Chandler) who score efficiently, rebound and defend the paint. One final note on Hibbert is his excellent passing for a center; he ranks in the top ten for assists per minute and was 3rd for assists at the rim per minute.

Darren Collison

Collison will be 24-years-old next year and may be the Pacers third best player. He is very fast and capable of getting into the paint, but struggled with his shooting and also running the Pacer’s offense. He was almost a perfectly average point guard with a PER of 15.6 and TS% (53.4%) and eFG% (48.1%) within 0.1% of league average for point guards. His turnover rate and assists per 40 minutes were also nearly at league average.

Collison struggled defensively last year. He has trouble defending in isolations and also in the pick-and-roll; the Pacers defense was 5.78 points per 100 possessions better when he was off the court. He needs to improve this aspect of his game and also re-find the shooting touch he showed in 2009-10 when he hit 45% of his shots from 16-23 feet and 40% of his threes (compared to 39% and 33% this year). Without these improvements, he will not be more than an average NBA point guard.

Tyler Hansbrough

Tyler Hansbrough will be 26 next year and really came on strong last season. In March and April, he averaged 15.6 points per game while shooting 49.5% in just 29 minutes. Oftentimes, he was one of the lone bright spots for the Pacer’s offense.

Here are some reasons to not get overly excited about Hansbrough as more than a 6th man though: over these breakout two months, his eFG% (49.5%) and TS% (54.3%) were both slightly below league average for a power forward. And as discussed in Part 1, these metrics are the most likely to correspond with effective team offense.

Hansbrough’s rebounding also dropped during these two months, from 9.0 to 8.1 rebounds per 36 minutes. He is an above-average offensive rebounder, but out of 79 PFs who played 500 or more minutes last year, Hansbrough’s defensive rebounding rate ranked 59th. And since defensive rebounding correlates well with defensive efficiency, utilizing a power forward that can’t protect the glass hurts the defense.

In better news, he turns the ball over infrequently. But part of this is due to not making difficult passes, as he averaged just 1.0 assist per 36 minutes and his assists per used possession ranked 75th among PFs (out of 79 remember).

And he is below average as a defender. The Pacers were 3.5 points per 100 possessions worse on defense with him on the court. Perhaps worse still, for the months of March and April, he totaled 2 blocked shots. Hansbrough gives great effort and is definitely an offensive asset off the bench. He was effective from 16-23 feet last year, shooting 43%. If he could improve that accuracy to a David West/Kevin Garnett-level (47%) and improve his defensive rotations, his ability to efficiently contribute to a successful team would be improved.

Paul George

Paul George may be the only Pacer’s player with a “ceiling” of All-Star. At age 20 and as the 10th pick in the draft, George caught people’s attention last year with his athleticism and defense, particularly on Derrick Rose in the playoffs. Given his youth, we’ll start by focusing on what he did very well last year. Of 107 “swingmen” that played 40 games last year (as per HoopData), George ranked 15th  in defensive rebounding rate and 7th in defensive plays per 40 minutes. These are both items that correlate reasonably well with team defensive efficiency. The Pacers’ improvement at defending three point shots after George started seeing more minutes is also encouraging. Offensively, George was one of a handful of Pacer’s players that finished effectively at the rim with 65.6% shooting. This is even more impressive due to only 37% of these field goals being assisted (league average is 54% for a swingman).

George does have things to work on though. His three point shooting percentage of 29.7 needs to be improved. The poor long distance shooting offset his solid play from mid-range and at the rim, and resulted in true shooting (54.2%) and effective field goal rates (50.5%) very near league average (definite pattern of league average scoring efficiencies). There is hope though; George shot 45% on threes his freshman year at Fresno State. Finally, he turns the ball over too frequently and is a below average passer. As George gets older hopefully he can cut down on his turnovers and improve his shooting, because he has the tools to be a very good player in the NBA.

George Hill

As the team’s newest addition, Indiana native George Hill increases the team’s perimeter depth and gives the Pacers three solid players in the back court who are 25-years-old or younger. He will play either guard position (last year for the Spurs, he logged 1,122 minutes at PG and 1,026 at SG), and is a great replacement for many of the minutes played by Brandon Rush and AJ Price.

With usage between 18%-19%, Hill was a well-used role player for the Spurs. So the Pacers now have a “core” player capable staying efficient even with a relatively high usage; Hill’s TS% was 5 points higher than an average NBA guard while being assisted on only average amount of shots.

While he is an average rebounder for a point guard, he is well below average for the most traditional point guard statistic; the last two years he has ranked in the bottom five of all point guards for assist rate. He does avoid turnovers, however, ranking in the top ten in turnover rate for point guards the last two years.

One interesting item regarding his point guard play is the Spurs performance last year. Overall, the Spurs were 3 points per 100 possessions better with Hill on the court — pretty impressive for a player on a 61 win team. Furthermore, with him at point guard, the Spurs were even better, improving by 4 points per 100 possessions — very impressive for a team with Tony Parker starting at PG.

Related Topics: , , , , , , ,

{ 4 comments }

The Pacers’ Recent Past & Near Future: Part 1, What Makes an NBA Team Effective?

by Kevin Hetrick on August 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm · 4 comments

(This post series is the first contribution to 8 Points, 9 Seconds by Kevin Hetrick. He has previously written for the ESPN TrueHoop Network site Cavs the Blog as a “draft expert.” Originally from Ohio, he has lived in Indianapolis for about 10 years and recently took a keen interest into what makes the Pacers tick.)

Looking at the Pacers, it is easy to see the makings of a good team. They are young, have cap flexibility and play at a fast pace. They should continue to be a team on the rise. With George Hill in tow, they have six players under contract who most NBA analysts would consider viable members of a quality eight-man rotation (Danny Granger, Hill, Darren Collison, Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough and Roy Hibbert).  Most are 25 or younger and Granger is the senior-citizen of the bunch at 28.

This core can likely keep the Pacers as a 45 to 50 win team for several years.

In this post series, we will be analyzing exactly how the team can improve on its 2010-11 performance. But to start, we won’t be looking at the Pacers. We will first look at some of metrics that we’ll be using throughout the analysis.

The goal in every basketball game is to score more points than the opponent. It’s a simple game. And the best way to measure the effectiveness of a team at scoring and defending is offensive and defensive ratings, aka, points per 100 possessions (pts/100). This in and of itself doesn’t tell you how a team scored or defended effectively — it just tells you whether or not they did.

To find out the how, we look at a few other metrics. Specifically, we’re going to look at how well these other metrics have correlated with pts/100. (Correlations, and all trend data in this article series, are based on leaguewide stats from the past three seasons). The higher the correlation, the more likely it is that an improvement in the statistic will lead to improved rating. (A perfect positive correlation is 1.0, a perfect “negative correction” is -1.0 and something found to be independent is 0.) For instance, making a team shoot a low FG% is a better way to become a better defensive team than blocking a lot of shots is. Thus, defensive FG% has a correlation much closer to 1.0.

By far, the highest correlations to offensive rating are the shooting percentage statistics. Over the last three years, effective field goal percentage (eFG%, which is basically FG% that accounts for the fact that three-pointers are worth three points) has correlation of 0.864, true shooting percentage (eFG% that also accounts for FT%) has correlation of 0.859, and good ol’ fashioned field goal percentage has correlation of 0.771.

This isn’t really revelatory; if your team shoots well, they will likely be a good offense. The most interesting aspect may be that eFG% had better correlation than true shooting (this is true with defensive rating also). Logically, many consider TS% to be a better stat since it incorporates the ability to get to the free throw line (and make those freebies). However, teams were (very slightly) more likely to be effective with increases in eFG%.

Something more interesting is where the best offenses shoot from. Of all shooting ranges tracked by Hoopdata.com, percentage of field goals taken as threes had the best correlation with offensive rating at 0.411. This is not shocking; leaguewide, the eFG% for three-pointers is higher than any shot besides those at the rim. So, teams that create good looks from three-point range are more likely to  have a good offense than teams that can’t. As this suggests, three-point shooting percentage also has good correlation (0.627).

More surprising is that percentage of shots taken at the rim had negative correlation with offensive rating. The negative correlation was small enough to effectively be independent (-0.083), but a reasonable assumption is that teams shooting more shots at the rim would fare better. This wasn’t the case. Average FG% at the rim has been 60%–64% compared to an average eFG% of around 50%; but oddly, teams shooting more often at the rim are slightly more likely to have worse offenses. Increasing a team’s proportion of shots from 3–9 ft, 10–15 ft, and 16–23 ft is more likely to correspond with decreased offensive efficiency (-0.097, -0.169 and -0.287, respectively).

Assist-related stats also offer some insights. Percentage of possessions including an assist had reasonably high correlation with offensive rating (0.474), but this is tied to other factors. Obviously, teams that don’t turn the ball over and make shots at a high percentage are more likely to have possessions with an assist.

This can be seen in the fact that the percentage of field goals that were assisted only had a correlation of 0.182. An interesting aspect of this is that increased percentages of field goals assisted from 3–9 ft, 10–15, 16–23 ft and three-point range had small negative correlations (from -0.097 to -0.198). Only percentage of assists on field goals made at the rim had a positive correlation (0.253).

These numbers reflect the importance of players who can create shots for themselves. If a team is relying on the offensive system to create a bucket from anywhere outside of three feet, it is likely to result in worse offense. The correlation of percentage of assists for various shooting ranges may also provide some insight into the importance of strong guards and wings, as opposed to big men. This conclusion is based on assisting for easy opportunities at the rim is the only area of assisting that appears to support good offense.

As for other statistical areas, reducing turnovers and getting to the free-throw line (in terms of FTAs per FGAs) had decent correlations of 0.427 and 0.326, respectively. Actual free-throw shooting percentage had minimal positive correlation of 0.169. Pace was completely independent from offensive efficiency (-0.021 correlation). And offensive rebounding rate (ORR) was independent from offensive rating with correlation of 0.025. This doesn’t mean that offensive rebounds aren’t important — just that a great offensive rebounding team is as likely to be a good offense as a bad offense.

In summary, improving a team’s offense is most easily performed by finding players that can create and make shots, first for themselves and secondarily as shots at the rim for teammates. Creating good three-point attempts is important. Reducing turnovers is more likely to result in improved offense than getting to the free throw line. Building a strong offensive rebounding team should be a GM’s last concern.

The other side of the ball not-so-surprisingly has some similar results. Like on offense, forcing opponents to miss shots is most important on defense. The correlation is even higher here, however. Opponent eFG% has correlation of 0.92, TS% is at 0.917, and FG% is 0.906.

One trend that is more pronounced is how well certain shots are defended. Opponent’s FG% at the rim and from three-point range both had very high correlations of 0.712 and 0.706. Opponent FG% from 16–23 feet was important (0.55 correlation), while defending better from mid-range was less so (a correlation of only 0.21).

The range of correlations for shot locations on offense was tightly packed from 0.35 to 0.65; shooting well from anywhere was comparably likely to result in quality offense. The wider range of correlations defensively likely highlights the importance of contesting shots in the paint and closing-out on shooters.

Unlike with offense, there was minimal correlation between reducing three-point attempts and better defense (0.157). But there was decent correlation for forcing opponents to shoot long twos and defensive rating. Percentage of opponent’s shots from 10–15 feet had correlation of 0.515 and percentage of shots from 16–23 feet was at 0.378. In sum, it was more important to ensure opponents shot from this range than to make them shoot a below-average percentage from there.

Defensive rebounding was a lot more likely to result in good defense than offensive rebounding was for offense. The correlation of rebounding to defensive efficiency was 0.649. Percentage of blocks and defensive plays (block, steals, charges) had relatively low correlation with defensive rating (0.314 and 0.37, respectively) while reducing free-throw attempts and forcing turnovers had even lower correlation (0.247 and 0.177).

Finally, passing stats were more indicative of defensive performance than for offense. On defense, lower rates of assisted field goals had positive correlation with defensive efficiency for all shooting ranges. Additionally the positive correlation on defense is higher than the negative correlation for offense. Reducing the percentage of assisted field goals has correlation ranging from 0.118 (16–23 feet) to 0.426 (at rim). On offense, it seems that is important to have players who can create their own shots; and on defense, it appears vital to ensure that opponents are forced to create their own shots. Make of that what you will.

To summarize, on defense it is important to contest shots at the rim, close out on shooters, and control the defensive boards. The correlation of defensive efficiency to FG% at the rim and on threes, and to lower assist rates; demonstrates the importance of the defensive system and quality rotations for defensive efficiency. More traditional individual and team stats like blocks, fouls and turnovers have lower correlation to defensive efficiency than stats reflecting good team defense (shot locations, assist rates). Good one-on-one defense is important, but good rotations, consistent effort and keeping the opponent acting as five individuals instead of as a cohesive unit are more important.

Related Topics: ,

{ 4 comments }

Pacers Player Stats Through 18 Games

by Jared Wade on December 6, 2010 at 1:10 am · 5 comments

The other day, we looked at where the team stands statistically compared to the rest of the league. Such offensive and defensive ratings can be very helpful and you can monitor how those and other metrics change as the season progresses over at Basketball-Reference.com. (Don’t worry, we’ll also keep a close watch and let you know when or if the trends change.)

Obviously, the further and further we get into the season, the more such numbers can be trusted to properly depict reality. Even now, after 18 games, the sample size is still too small for us to really know if the numbers we see will be similar to those we see in the future. Are the Pacers really the the 7th best defensive team in the NBA? Or are there a few anomalies in there skewing the data?

We will see in time.

It’s even more important to realize such things when looking at individual player numbers. It’s only December 5. The team has only played 18 games. We can’t forget that. One or two really good or really bad nights can skew the following stats we will look at dramatically.

With that caveat, here are how all the Pacers players have done so far statistically. For the traditional per game individual stats through 18 games, check here. Those are interesting, but I think we already knew all that.

Instead, we’ll focus on some less obvious numbers.

Production Per 40 Minutes

Here’s are the numbers all the Pacers players put up per 40 minutes. We focus on this rather than the per-game numbers so that we can see which players are making the most of their minute. Obviously, some guys will give you diminishing returns if asked to play 40 mpg (although, historically, most guys have come pretty close to their extrapolated totals when thrust into larger roles), but the point here is mainly just to neutralize things to a per-minute basis rather than presuming anyone could do exactly these numbers in 40 minutes.

To more prominently illustrate who is doing what in which categories, I have highlighted the numbers with green and red to show whether the player is higher or lower than the league average. Green means the player has a higher number except in the case of turnovers and personal fouls.

Here are the five things that stand out the most to me.

1. Quantitatively, TJ Ford pretty much does nothing while he’s on the court.

2. Mike Dunleavy grabs a significant number of more boards than Danny Granger. It would be nearly impossible for someone who had never seen them play but just looked at them side-by-side to understand how this could happen.

3. This team could really use someone who could get to the line.

4. The way the assists are so well-distributed suggests that (a) the ball movement is pretty good, or (b) the team’s guards are not setting many people up for easy buckets.

5. Solomon Jones fouls a ton.

Advanced Stats

Again, the green in the next chart also means “above average” aside from with turnover rate, for which it means “better” (that is, lower). Additionally, we see even more here that the red/green demarcation is really a rough barometer. Roy Hibbert’s assist rate, for example is 14.8% compared to a league average of 15.3%. Obviously, a center who is just a hair below the league assist average for all players in no way deserves to have a giant red shadow over his number. But all it means is that it is lower. I trust that you’re educated enough to understand that a more nuanced look at these can tell us more than any red/green highlight can.

Here are the eight categories in the chart below:

  • Usage Rate (USG) – The percentage of offensive possessions a player uses
  • Percent of Field Goals that Are Assisted (%AST) – Self-explanatory … can help show how often players create their own shots vs. just “finishing” plays
  • Assist Rate (AR) – Percentage of the team’s possessions that end in the player getting an assist
  • Turnover Rate (TOR) – Percentage of the team’s possessions that end in the player turning the ball over
  • Offensive Rebound Rate (ORR) – Percentage of possible offensive rebounds a player grabs while on the floor
  • Defensive Rebound Rate (DRR) – Percentage of possible defensive rebounds a player grabs while on the floor
  • Total Rebound Rate (TRR) – Percentage of possible total rebounds a player grabs while on the floor
  • Player Efficiency Rating (PER) – John Hollinger’s attempt at a singular metric to define a player’s stat value.

Here are the five things that stand out the most to me.

1. Roy Hibbert is an advanced stat beast. Those rebounding numbers are as impressive as they are unexpected. If he can keep this up it will represent a huge step forward for him on the glass. It’s very rare to see a guy go from a total rebound rate of 12.4% to 17.3% in one offseason.

2. This chart shows why Brandon Rush is so poorly respected by the NBA media that like stats. He is below average in every category here aside from turnover rate (which makes sense cause he doesn’t handle the ball much) and … you guessed it … minutes per game. That makes people scratch their heads. Obviously, he plays good on-the-ball defense, however, and as we’ll see below, he shoots rather well.

3. TJ Ford’s assist rate is considerably higher now than it was in his first two years in Indy. He was around 24% that past two seasons and his current 29.7% compares favorably to the 31-32% he posted in Toronto. His PER is obviously gross, however (and we’ll see later that his shooting is just as bad).

4. Mike Dunleavy, James Posey and Solomon Jones have almost never created their own points. All three score more than four out of every five buckets right after catching a pass — with Posey’s 86.7% rate suggesting that he might not even know how to dribble.

5. Solomon Jones can’t catch passes, turning the ball over on a ridiculous 17% of his possessions.

Shooting Accuracy

(UPDATE: The charts in this section were a little off for the first few hours this post was live. Not sure what happened, but the numbers were not all correct. All has been fixed. Here are the updated charts.)

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Again, green is above average, red is below average. (Note, however, that while Granger and Mike Dunleavy and Darren Collison’s FG%s are technically below average, we’re talking about one percentage point over 18 games. In reality, they are both shooting just fine from the field. Nuance remains important.)

The only things you need to know about the metrics is that eFG% (effective field goal percentage) is FG% adjusted to recognize that threes are higher risk/reward shots that are worth one more point than shots closer in and that TS% (true shooting percentage) is FG% weighted to include both threes and free-throws.

The last category measures how good the player has been at getting to the line. It’s free-throw attempts per field goal attempt — and the whole team is really poor at getting the line outside of two big men that don’t play a huge number of minutes. Good on Tyler and Solo though. At least someone is getting some freebies once in a while. Would be nice if more people did since ten guys shoot em at an above-league-average clip and, collectively, the Pacers are the 9th best FT shooting team in the NBA.


Perhaps more interestingly, below is a look at how each guy has shot from different spots on the floor. All this data comes from the invaluable site HoopData.com and their shot location data is their crown jewel. Most of this other statistical stuff can be found at various sites, but we have only had this location data publicly available for about a year or so since HoopData emerged. Thank you, kind sirs.

One thing that stands out is that Roy Hibbert isn’t very effective outside of 10 feet. We probably could have guessed this, but he has been a more willing outside shooter this year and it has seemed (to me anyway) like he has improved. Well, he hasn’t. He’s basically steady from 16-23 feet so far this year and has been comparatively abysmal from 10-15 feet (28.6% this season compared to 41.5% last year). Fortunately, however, Danny has been money from basically everywhere aside from the 10- to 15-foot range … but he doesn’t shoot much from there so no big deal. Rush, too, is looking good across the board. , only needing to dial in better from behind the arc. Josh McRoberts, on the other hand, can’t hit water from a boat no matter the distance. (UPDATE: I’m leaving this last line even if it’s hyperbolic given the updated, slightly improved numbers. He hasn’t shot particularly well aside from behind the arc is the point.)

Related Topics:

{ 5 comments }

John Hollinger Notices Brandon Rush!

by Tim Donahue on March 26, 2010 at 8:11 pm · 4 comments

Though, Brandon probably would have preferred that he not.

ESPN’s resident stat guru John Hollinger devoted an entire True Hoop post this afternoon to a dubious honor that Rush is about to earn.

If he manages to maintain his lead, he’ll claim the dubious distinction of being the worst player ever to lead his team in minutes. My search through the record books unearthed only two other players in the post-merger era to lead their team in minutes with a single-digit PER: Bruce Bowen with San Antonio in 2003-04, and Jason Collins with the Nets a season later.

Brandon’s PER of 9.96 is well below 15, the benchmark for average.  Additionally, only Solomon Jones, Jeff Foster, and Travis Diener have posted worse PER’s for the Pacers this season.

Mr. Hollinger’s not making a lot of friends in either the Pacer front office or the fan base, but how right is he?  Well, PER by itself is far from definite proof on the quality of the player.  Even Hollinger admits this, so he’s being a bit casual here.   Still, when you think of it from the perspective of all of the players who have led their team in minutes, you have to believe that Brandon is a whole lot closer to the worst than he is to the best.

The one thing that many in Pacer land love to give Rush credit for is his defense.  It is true that Brandon is the best defender on the team, but that’s not exactly what you’d call a towering accomplishment.  However, Hollinger even took issue with that.

But those were two of the best defensive players of the decade (if not ever, in Bowen’s case), so it’s obvious why they played so much. Rush is just an average defender, making his usage more perplexing.

I can hear the “harumphs” echoing through Conseco now.

This isn’t the first time recently Brandon has received a less than glowing review from a national media member.  Chad Ford recently tweeted:

Tournament draft busts? Ed O’Bannon, Sean May, Chris Wilcox, Brandon Rush, Christian Laettner, Mateen Cleaves, Patrick O’Bryant …

Then, in response to @pacersdigest, who was protesting that Brandon was not a bust:

If NBA games were played only in March & April that would be true

Harsh words.  So, what do you think?


Related Topics: , , ,

{ 4 comments }

← Older Stuff