2019 Off-Season Questions

[Wizop]

I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.

and if we figure out a defensive scheme that works for Myles and Damos, the same scheme should work with either one of them and Julius.

[Tom White]

I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.

and if we figure out a defensive scheme that works for Myles and Damos, the same scheme should work with either one of them and Julius.

So which two of the three would you start, and how do you think that would set with the third guy?

Finding total minutes for each is not a problem, but guys do have pride and egos (not meant in a bad way).

[Wizop]

So which two of the three would you start, and how do you think that would set with the third guy?

I tell Randle's agent in the negotiations that we're not bringing Julius in ahead of our current core; but while Myles and Damos will start most nights, Julius can expect 30 minutes a night. either he's comfortable coming here on those terms or he's not.

[pacers33granger]

So which two of the three would you start, and how do you think that would set with the third guy?

I tell Randle's agent in the negotiations that we're not bringing Julius in ahead of our current core; but while Myles and Damos will start most nights, Julius can expect 30 minutes a night. either he's comfortable coming here on those terms or he's not.

Pretty sure his agent is still Mintz (PG's agent). It would be Julius's call clearly, but that's not a great opening to negotiations with an agent the front office has some bad history with.

[Scoot McGroot]

Apparently Memphis wanted Aaron Holiday and two firsts for Conley (similar to the Utah deal) and we said no. I’m ok with saying no on that. Especially with Vic reportedly out until December or January according to Woj.

[Wizop]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

[Scoot McGroot]

Certainly means we need to find a solid fill in for that position. Whether that's Wes taking the room exception, a 2/3 wing in the draft, another free agent, or even if it's Doug temporarily, that's a spot I'm not sure we're comfortable with Sumner running solo for that long.

[Wizop]

Certainly means we need to find a solid fill in for that position. Whether that's Wes taking the room exception, a 2/3 wing in the draft, another free agent, or even if it's Doug temporarily, that's a spot I'm not sure we're comfortable with Sumner running solo for that long.

unless Herb sanctions a lottery year.

Sent from my phone.

[Topofthekey]

if it takes 15 to 18 to resign Thad, would anyone want to take a run at Julius Randle instead?

I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.

The problem becomes playing time and starting positions between Myles, Domas and Randle. None of them will be happy for long coming off the bench. Of course, the same problem can arise with Myles, Domas and Thad, but I think Thad would be more likely to accept a bench role at some point.

The way I see it, this is the era of modern NBA, people really need to start seeing things differently

For example, why does a team need to have only ONE starting lineup? Why can't a team have TWO starting lineups?

And then it would be up to the coach to decide on a game to game or week to week basis which starting lineup to go for, depending on matchups

In fact, let's take this concept even further; we've heard a lot about load management, which is a thing, so instead of having 5 starters, why can't a team work with some sort of starting schedule? For example, instead of having a player start 82 games at one position, why can't we have two players at the same position start 41 games each?

And I don't mean on an ad hoc basis, I mean having everything planned out, right at the beginning of the season. Say for example we have Vic and Wes, both capable of starting at SG, and we tell them "ok Vic we are going to start you 70 games, and Wes will start the remaining 12", so that those 12 games come as some sort of scheduled maintenance kind of thing for Vic. How is this a problem? Why wait till your stars are worn out and on the verge of breaking down before reducing their load? Why not plan it out right from the beginning? It doesn't even have to be 12 games in a row, we should sprinkle the 12 games strategically throughout the season in order to manage Vic's load, hence it being called a schedule

This is what I think can be done, if Pacers have Myles, Domas, and Randle all on the team

Between the C and PF positions, there are 164 starts (82 games x 2 positions) - just plan it out ahead how are they going to split that 162 starts - maybe 65 for Myles, 65 for Randle, 34 for Domas. So Myles and Randle gets to start in 65 of our games, and Domas gets to start in 34 of our games. And it's not like they won't get their minutes if they aren't starting, they still will get their 20+ minutes even if they aren't starting, so I don't see any problem in that

If anything, you're basically telling Myles and Randle that they can play hard for 65 games, and then have a bit of rest and for the other games so that they can take care of their body and have a longer career - for Domas, he'll still get to start 34 games of the season (17 games each when Myles/Randle rests), which is a healthy chunk. And if anyone gets injured, obviously you adjust those numbers further, so Domas could very well end up starting a lot more than 34 games

I mean, we're in an era where a 7ft center is expected to be able to shoot 3-pointers, why are we still stuck in the mindset that a team needs to have a "starting lineup", why can't we work with a "starting schedule" instead?

[Scoot McGroot]

Read on Twitter

[Scoot McGroot]

if it takes 15 to 18 to resign Thad, would anyone want to take a run at Julius Randle instead?

I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.

The problem becomes playing time and starting positions between Myles, Domas and Randle. None of them will be happy for long coming off the bench. Of course, the same problem can arise with Myles, Domas and Thad, but I think Thad would be more likely to accept a bench role at some point.

The way I see it, this is the era of modern NBA, people really need to start seeing things differently

For example, why does a team need to have only ONE starting lineup? Why can't a team have TWO starting lineups?

And then it would be up to the coach to decide on a game to game or week to week basis which starting lineup to go for, depending on matchups

In fact, let's take this concept even further; we've heard a lot about load management, which is a thing, so instead of having 5 starters, why can't a team work with some sort of starting schedule? For example, instead of having a player start 82 games, why can't we have two players at the same position start 41 games each?

And I don't mean on an ad hoc basis, I mean having everything planned out, right at the beginning of the season. Say for example we have Vic and Wes, both capable of starting at SG, and we tell them "ok Vic we are going to start you 70 games, and Wes will start the remaining 12", so that those 12 games come as some sort of scheduled maintenance kind of thing for Vic. How is this a problem? Why wait till your stars are worn out and on the verge of breaking down before reducing their load? Why not plan it out right from the beginning? It doesn't even have to be 12 games in a row, we should sprinkle the 12 games strategically throughout the season in order to manage Vic's load, hence it being a starting schedule

This is what I think can be done, if Pacers have Myles, Domas, and Randle all on the team

Between the C and PF positions, there are 164 starts (82 games x 2 positions) - just plan it out ahead how are they going to split that 162 starts - maybe 65 for Myles, 65 for Randle, 34 for Domas. So Myles and Randle gets to start in 65 of our games, and Domas gets to start in 34 of our games. And it's not like they won't get their minutes if they aren't starting, they still will get their 20+ minutes even if they aren't starting, so I don't see any problem in that

If anything, you're basically telling Myles and Randle that they can play hard for 65 games, and then have a bit of rest and for the other games so that they can take care of their body and have a longer career - for Domas, he'll still get to start 34 games (17 games each when Myles/Randle rests), which is a healthy chunk. And if anyone gets injured, obviously you adjust those numbers further, so Domas could very well end up starting a lot more than 34 games

I mean, we're in an era where a 7ft center is expected to be able to shoot 3-pointers, why are we still stuck in the mindset that a team needs to have a "starting lineup", why can't we work with a "starting schedule" instead?

I think flexibility is the key to success in the NBA. Both in starting lineups, and how they’re played.

Scheduling everything at the beginning of the year is likely too much work when a twisted ankle in the first game basically leads you to throw the whole plan in the garbage.

Rest, rotations, etc? Absolutely. I appreciate the though, but the follow through is where you lose it. People just have to play some days, no matter what your schedule says. People just need a day off sometimes no matter what your schedule from months ahead said. Stomach bugs, twists, sprains, and an inevitable season ending injury all individually kill a schedule. They don’t kill an intent and focus, though, and that’s where I’m with you.

[Topofthekey]

I think flexibility is the key to success in the NBA. Both in starting lineups, and how they’re played.

Scheduling everything at the beginning of the year is likely too much work when a twisted ankle in the first game basically leads you to throw the whole plan in the garbage.

Rest, rotations, etc? Absolutely. I appreciate the though, but the follow through is where you lose it. People just have to play some days, no matter what your schedule says. People just need a day off sometimes no matter what your schedule from months ahead said. Stomach bugs, twists, sprains, and an inevitable season ending injury all individually kill a schedule. They don’t kill an intent and focus, though, and that’s where I’m with you.

Of course

I'm not saying we stick to the schedule by hook or by crook, we obviously make swaps and adjustments throughout the season - for example, say this is the schedule in an upcoming month

Game 1: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 2: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 3: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 4: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 5: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 6: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 7: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 8: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 9: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 10: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 11: Myles/Randle, Domas

Based on the schedule, Randle will come off the bench in games 5, 6, and 7, for his scheduled maintenance

But what if Domas ate a bad pizza the night before and happens to not be 100% on game 5?

No problem, just tweak the schedule, perhaps swap the schedule for game 5 and 8, so that Randle gets his scheduled rest during games 6, 7, and 8 instead

[Pacers_Freak]

if it takes 15 to 18 to resign Thad, would anyone want to take a run at Julius Randle instead?

I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.

The problem becomes playing time and starting positions between Myles, Domas and Randle. None of them will be happy for long coming off the bench. Of course, the same problem can arise with Myles, Domas and Thad, but I think Thad would be more likely to accept a bench role at some point.

The way I see it, this is the era of modern NBA, people really need to start seeing things differently

For example, why does a team need to have only ONE starting lineup? Why can't a team have TWO starting lineups?

And then it would be up to the coach to decide on a game to game or week to week basis which starting lineup to go for, depending on matchups

In fact, let's take this concept even further; we've heard a lot about load management, which is a thing, so instead of having 5 starters, why can't a team work with some sort of starting schedule? For example, instead of having a player start 82 games at one position, why can't we have two players at the same position start 41 games each?

And I don't mean on an ad hoc basis, I mean having everything planned out, right at the beginning of the season. Say for example we have Vic and Wes, both capable of starting at SG, and we tell them "ok Vic we are going to start you 70 games, and Wes will start the remaining 12", so that those 12 games come as some sort of scheduled maintenance kind of thing for Vic. How is this a problem? Why wait till your stars are worn out and on the verge of breaking down before reducing their load? Why not plan it out right from the beginning? It doesn't even have to be 12 games in a row, we should sprinkle the 12 games strategically throughout the season in order to manage Vic's load, hence it being called a schedule

This is what I think can be done, if Pacers have Myles, Domas, and Randle all on the team

Between the C and PF positions, there are 164 starts (82 games x 2 positions) - just plan it out ahead how are they going to split that 162 starts - maybe 65 for Myles, 65 for Randle, 34 for Domas. So Myles and Randle gets to start in 65 of our games, and Domas gets to start in 34 of our games. And it's not like they won't get their minutes if they aren't starting, they still will get their 20+ minutes even if they aren't starting, so I don't see any problem in that

If anything, you're basically telling Myles and Randle that they can play hard for 65 games, and then have a bit of rest and for the other games so that they can take care of their body and have a longer career - for Domas, he'll still get to start 34 games of the season (17 games each when Myles/Randle rests), which is a healthy chunk. And if anyone gets injured, obviously you adjust those numbers further, so Domas could very well end up starting a lot more than 34 games

I mean, we're in an era where a 7ft center is expected to be able to shoot 3-pointers, why are we still stuck in the mindset that a team needs to have a "starting lineup", why can't we work with a "starting schedule" instead?

The issue with that is what happens with injuries? Also, guys like their numbers. So with load management if I sit it doesn't hurt my ppg, rpg, etc. If I become a bench player for half of the year it does. That is going to be a tough sell to players and agents.

[Wizop]

I really hate substituting by the clock let alone by the calendar. Pine time is one of the coaches best weapons. Don't give up your hook.

That said, it is a team game - one team, not a first team and a second team. Fortunately, I could easily find numerous pictures of guys on our bench cheering for the guys on the floor. I'd like to think this culture starts with the coaches.

So, while I wouldn't back a schedule because it doesn't take matchups and the flow of a game into account, I do see the need to make everyone feel wanted. I hope the coaches are going to Myles and Damos and telling them that sure there have been calls from other teams asking about you - you are both great players - but our plan is to build around you and of course Victor,

[Scoot McGroot]

I think flexibility is the key to success in the NBA. Both in starting lineups, and how they’re played.

Scheduling everything at the beginning of the year is likely too much work when a twisted ankle in the first game basically leads you to throw the whole plan in the garbage.

Rest, rotations, etc? Absolutely. I appreciate the though, but the follow through is where you lose it. People just have to play some days, no matter what your schedule says. People just need a day off sometimes no matter what your schedule from months ahead said. Stomach bugs, twists, sprains, and an inevitable season ending injury all individually kill a schedule. They don’t kill an intent and focus, though, and that’s where I’m with you.

Of course

I'm not saying we stick to the schedule by hook or by crook, we obviously make swaps and adjustments throughout the season - for example, say this is the schedule in an upcoming month

Game 1: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 2: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 3: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 4: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 5: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 6: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 7: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 8: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 9: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 10: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 11: Myles/Randle, Domas

Based on the schedule, Randle will come off the bench in games 5, 6, and 7, for his scheduled maintenance

But what if Domas ate a bad pizza the night before and happens to not be 100% on game 5?

No problem, just tweak the schedule, perhaps swap the schedule for game 5 and 8, so that Randle gets his scheduled rest during games 6, 7, and 8 instead

And then Dom tweaks his ankle at game 7 and is out 2-3 weeks. What do you do then?

[Scoot McGroot]

And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.

alSO, load management means resting guys so they’d be inactive those nights. It’s not just rotating who’s starting and who’s coming off the bench. They’re still warming up, getting treatment, playing, etc. that’s not rest.

[Wizop]

And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.

I get that you don't get to this level unless you are super-competitive, but a coach should be able to make a player understand that he's one of our top three players but our best chance of winning requires him to come off the bench, I know few of you are old enough to have seen the great Boston teams, but Red Auerbach pulled it off.

[Scoot McGroot]

And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.

I get that you don't get to this level unless you are super-competitive, but a coach should be able to make a player understand that he's one of our top three players but our best chance of winning requires him to come off the bench, I know few of you are old enough to have seen the great Boston teams, but Red Auerbach pulled it off.

And it’s been 53 years since he did that.

[Topofthekey]

And then Dom tweaks his ankle at game 7 and is out 2-3 weeks. What do you do then?

Then the schedule for the next 2-3 weeks will be: Myles/Randle, Leaf (or whoever we have for depth)

Basically whatever starts he was scheduled to have goes to Myles or Randle, and whatever backup minutes he was scheduled to have goes to Leaf

Domas can't/won't complain about his playing time going to Leaf if he tweaked his ankle (not that I'm saying Domas is one to complain about playing time)

What if Myles or Randle also miss a chunk of game at the same time as Domas? Well, if the team is having that kind of bad luck with injuries, scheduling who starts is the least of our concerns

[Topofthekey]

And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.

alSO, load management means resting guys so they’d be inactive those nights. It’s not just rotating who’s starting and who’s coming off the bench. They’re still warming up, getting treatment, playing, etc. that’s not rest.

Well, at least when a player asks you what is his role on the team, instead of saying:

"You'll have to wait, you'll get a bigger role if someone gets injured"

You'll be able to say:

"We expect you'll start about 40% of our games"

Yes, I understand that load management is letting players skip some games, but the idea is that if they are scheduled to have their playing time reduced from 30-34 mins as a starter to 20-24 minutes off the bench for certain stretches of the season, their body will hopefully be able to better cope with the strain of playing the entire season, meaning they won't end up needing to skip any games to rest at all, barring injuries