RealGM

Sorry so sloppy, I don't really have the skills.
Bobcats (10-13) AT Pacers (8-14)



Series So Far:
Bobcats won 104-88 in Indiana. This was Jax home debut. TC was out with back spasms and Naz played really well in his absence. Danny Granger had an off night.

Hollinger Stats
Pace: Charlotte (27th) Indiana (2nd)
Assist Rate: Charlotte (28th) Indiana (23rd)
TO Rate: Charlotte (30th) Indiana (24th)
Oreb Rate: Charlotte (12th) Indiana (26th)
Dreb Rate: Charlotte (5th) Indiana (16th)
Reb Rate: Charlotte (9th) Indiana (26th)
Eff FG%: Charlotte (28th) Indiana (26th)
TS%: Charlotte (27th) Indiana (25th)
Off Rating: Charlotte (27th) Indiana (26th)
Def Rating: Charlotte (3rd) Indiana (11th)

Beautiful Side of Basketball:
Jordan

Jarin
Walt Wonders
Is it worse to be a high pace team with a low offensive rating or a low pace team with a low offensive rating?
Bobcats found beneficial play from Naz in game one because of a TC injury. Does he get more minutes than last night? Were his minutes limited to keep him fresher for the Pacers?
He ought to be the best rested of the starters, so can Diaw keep up his successful 4th quarter?

Walt Cronkite wrote:Walt Wonders
Is it worse to be a high pace team with a low offensive rating or a low pace team with a low offensive rating?

Maybe this is just my logic, but my answer would be a low pace team with low offensive rating. Especially when that team has a better defense. With a lower pace we limit the other team's possessions. Couple that with a good defense, it that allows us to be in games. Maybe that logic is flawed but just my idea.

Oh and by the way, Jarin is better looking that Jordan...

That logic is flawed. It makes no difference whatsoever in terms of your ability to win games... only what it looks like to watch them. So I'm going with the idea that the low pace is worse, because I am an impatient offense-monger.

My logic is that Jax the kitten is undefeated thus far and shall remain as such after tonight.

The kitten has spoken.

We need Granger to have another off night. That would go a long way towards a victory.

ohara wrote:We need Granger to have another off night. That would go a long way towards a victory.

Granger's injured. Tonight we'll have to stop Dungleavy. I think Murphy has been playing well too.

Paydro70 wrote:That logic is flawed. It makes no difference whatsoever in terms of your ability to win games... only what it looks like to watch them. So I'm going with the idea that the low pace is worse, because I am an impatient offense-monger.

I am not saying one style is better for winning games. But teams with a higher pace have more possessions, meaning more opportunities to score. You win by scoring more than your opponent. Yes, playing a high paced team would also, in turn, give the other team more possessions.

He asked if a team with a high pace and a low offensive rating (IND) is better than a low pace team with a low offensive rating (CHA). And I was just saying that the Bobcat's has been more effective. A team with a high pace and a low offensive rating, obviously isn't making the most of their scoring chances. I know pace isn't the only factor in winning as why I said our defense keeps us in games and allows us to make up for our offensive rating.

What I'm saying is that because possessions always alternate in basketball, each side always ends up with the same number. It doesn't matter if that number is high or low, what matters is what happens on those possessions.

There's no connection between pace and defense or offense... a fast paced team can play great D or terrible D, great O or terrible O, same for a slow one. So while it is true that the Bobcats' D makes up for its O, there's only one answer to Walt's question, and that is "it doesn't matter." Well, except if you like to see points get scored.

Yea, it comes down to personal opinion. Since neither team scores well on their possessions it's basically asking "would you prefer to have a low point producing team that takes a lot more shots (and also misses a lot more of those shots) or a low point producing team that doesn't push to get extra opportunities (that they would just miss anyway)." As a final clarification, I didn't ask which team's situation was better, but which team's situation was worse.

Also, that is CRAZY TALK about Jarin being hotter than Jordan. I spent WAAAY too much time trying to offer up a solid Pacemate and then picked the best available picture. There are many more pictures of the goat looking hot. Many more. Example:

VS

Paydro70 wrote:What I'm saying is that because possessions always alternate in basketball, each side always ends up with the same number. It doesn't matter if that number is high or low, what matters is what happens on those possessions.

There's no connection between pace and defense or offense... a fast paced team can play great D or terrible D, great O or terrible O, same for a slow one. So while it is true that the Bobcats' D makes up for its O, there's only one answer to Walt's question, and that is "it doesn't matter." Well, except if you like to see points get scored.

That is true. But aren't we comparing a team's pace and team's offensive efficiency. If you are a high pace team and have a low offensive rating, you aren't making the most of you possessions. If pace is how many possessions you use per game and you have a low offensive efficiency, that can't be better than a team that doesn't use as many possessions per game with a low offensive efficiency. I guess what I am saying is, we are comparing pace with offensive efficiency not if pace determines if you are a good offensive team or whatever. I understand you alternate possessions but a team (like the Pacers) can have an higher average of possessions per game than another team (like the Bobcats)

But I guess, like you said, those with a high pace are for the most part more pleasing to the eye.

Walt Cronkite wrote:As a final clarification, I didn't ask which team's situation was better, but which team's situation was worse.

Yes you did. I misread. To me, the Pacers pace/offensive efficiency is worse, ha.

Walt Cronkite wrote:There are many more pictures of the goat looking hot. Many more. Example:

Goat?

I didn't realize Jordan could kick my a**.

I can't believe she's a receptionist. I guess I'm just glad she doesn't work here. The lawsuits would crush us.

Greatest of all time

Walt Cronkite wrote:Greatest of all time

Ah. Makes sense and completely agree.

I happen to find arm acne extremely sexy.....

She's a roider.

Call me crazy, but neither really is my type. Sure, they could go all night but then you are left, in the morning, with the remnants of your pride and (likely) a sore muscle or two. And then what? Shower? Breakfast, of champions? She downs a tofu-wheat-juice monstrosity as you plow through her collection of tea looking for something caffeinated, and she complains about having missed some "must-see TV" and wonders what happened to her ab-trainer machine (you dimly remember kicking that bastard under the bed after stubbing a toe on it in the dark) and she bustles chippy and cheery in the morning. Yes. Bustles. Chipper. Cheery. You can't get out soon enough, my god, her chirpy goodbye, hug, perhaps kiss, nothing more, just let me get into the cold silent car and drive away and wonder, really, if perhaps some things that people think are the best things in the world are actually overrated.

It wouldn't be types of tea that I would be plowing the next morning...........

BigSlam wrote:It wouldn't be types of tea that I would be plowing the next morning...........

See, everyone's different. That's cool, usually. Except some people are different in that they like to kill little kids. That's not so cool.

Two early fouls on Doc and Dunners...............thank God!!

Hopefully that will slow them down a little. The Pacers have started the game smoking hot and can't miss.

Good to see us hang in there, not panic after they started 9/10 from the floor including 3/3 from down town jumping out to a 17pt lead chip away at it and to bring us back within 4.