RealGM

I kind of agree. I'm super amped about a lot of things about the team this year, even after the recent skid, but I expected the defense to be a little bit better. Nate's slow teams in Portland tended to be offensively very efficient and poor on the defensive end. Are we seeing some of the same issue with Nate's faster team here in Indiana? Is this something the lauded Dan Burke can help fix? Is it a personnel issue? What do you think?

Defense has been a problem for the Pacers most of the year, which is somewhat curious considering they have the NBA’s leading shot-blocker (Myles Turner) and one of the best perimeter defenders in the league in Victor Oladipo.

The biggest issue is not individual defense (although there is plenty of improvement needed there as well); the larger problem is the club’s poor execution in terms of team defense.

Indiana has a very good defensive coach in Dan Burke, so the schemes they use are very sound. When the team follows the defensive game plan they perform very well; when they don’t, things can get rather ugly.

Adrian Lawhorn
https://hoopshabit.com/2018/01/08/indiana-pacers-team-defense-needs-to-improve/

I agree with this. I'm not sure I know the answer either. We would surely be a better defensive team with GR3 healthy. But, why are we not currently. I thought Bogey was really going to struggle on defense, but not saying he is great... but he has played better on that end than I anticipated. Team is in the bottom third of the league on defensive rating. Something that desperately needs improved.

Pacers_Freak wrote:Team is in the bottom third of the league on defensive rating. Something that desperately needs improved.

I have no idea what the rating measures. we've certainly had some stinkers. but we play at a fast pace when we are playing well and it's possible that a game with a lot of possessions and a high score looks bad statistically even if we're getting our share of blocks, steals, and deflections. wasn't it Reggie Wayne who used to say that the other guys are on scholarship too? there are nights when everything goes in even when shots are contested and a face pace leads to more shots.

They've shown the ability to lock in and play very good, aggressive defense. How many times have we finished games by holding a team below 20 points in the 4th quarter while scoring 25 ourselves? CoJo/Oladipo/Lance/Thad/Myles can be a very good defensive unit, but it does take all of them putting the focus on it. And the right matchups. We've seen what the Rockets have done to us, and the difficulty our bigs had against Steven Adams.

I think GRIII's return is going to be more beneficial to our team defense than anything. You know he's going to come in hungry to make an impact and help this team win. And I think if he's going to take Bojan's starting spot, it'll be for his defense. I'm excited to see a lineup with Oladipo/Lance/GRIII out there together. Talk about versatility and electricity! But I do think #40's return will have a positive impact on our defense and could be an element that propels us from our current .500 record and 8th seed back up to 5-10 games above .500 and a 4-5th seed.

Wizop wrote:

Pacers_Freak wrote:Team is in the bottom third of the league on defensive rating. Something that desperately needs improved.

I have no idea what the rating measures. we've certainly had some stinkers. but we play at a fast pace when we are playing well and it's possible that a game with a lot of possessions and a high score looks bad statistically even if we're getting our share of blocks, steals, and deflections. wasn't it Reggie Wayne who used to say that the other guys are on scholarship too? there are nights when everything goes in even when shots are contested and a face pace leads to more shots.

The rating looks at points given up per 100 possessions so that takes the pace factor out of it.

I was pleased by Joe Young's effort on defense the last few games. He's playing scrappy, high pressure defense, sometimes starting from the opponent's end of the court. Vic's effective on defense as well, as is Sabonis, and to an extent CoJo. And of course Myles Turner is a great defensive presence.

I think Turner and Sabonis probably needs to be more vocal on defense, and start nudging their teammates if they were slow to rotate. In some ways, the C/PF of a team is to a team's defense as to what a PG is to a team's offense. Being the tallest player on the court and being positioned near the basket, the bigs on the team usually have a much clearer view of what's going on, and are in a much better position to read the opponent's movements and alert their teammates to any potential defensive lapse. Turner and Sabonis are probably just still a bit too young an inexperienced to embrace this kind of leadership role.

To be fair, the team held both the Bulls and the Bucks to long scoring droughts the past two games, so it looks like they are improving?

Unrelated, but I remember watching the highlights of a Rockets game a while back, and Harden was playing his typical brand of James Harden defense. One of his teammate literally had to shove him towards his man on defense, which was very amusing to watch

The team needs to add a defender to this squad. Like a Sam Young few years ago. I don't think the Nets would do it, but a Hollis-Jefferson from their team would be a nice get for defense.

Grang33r wrote:The team needs to add a defender to this squad. Like a Sam Young few years ago. I don't think the Nets would do it, but a Hollis-Jefferson from their team would be a nice get for defense.

Or a Glen Robinson III

Pacers defense looked pretty decent the past few games, with Sabonis starting in the place of Turner.

Although Turner is a better defensive player individually, it seems like Sabonis, at least currently, is better in terms of improving the team's overall defense. Not sure how, maybe it's his hustle

"Past few games" meaning Utah and Phoenix? Then yes. The 2 previous games though, we gave up a 38 point 1st quarter to Miami and a 34 point 1st quarter to Cleveland, so opponent quality may have something to do with it.

Above all though - small sample size. It's hard to conclude anything.