As the Pacers slog through one of the least successful seasons in the franchise’s NBA history, we have occasionally heard the following comment from @JayNilla, friend of 8p9s.
7'2 floor spacer.
— Nilla Nillanovic (@JayNilla) January 17, 2015
Nilla is, of course, referring to the increasing number of perimeter jump shots being hoisted this season by Indiana’s 7’2″ center, Roy Hibbert.
He is clearly not the only one who has noticed.
Indy Cornrows has published two pieces that led our site to question “Why is Roy Hibbert always shooting so far away the hoop?”
The pictures tell the story.
Coming into this season, Hibbert had never taken as many as 30% of his shots from outside of 10 feet. This year, however, that rate has ballooned to almost 42%.
Meanwhile, the percentage of Roy’s attempts this year coming “at the rim” (meaning inside 3 feet) is barely half of his career split entering the year (19% vs. 35%). For a Pacer team that has espoused “Smashmouth Basketball” since coach Frank Vogel took control just over four years ago, the growth of the gold (swagger) triangle in the above chart, seemingly at the expense of the blue (collar) triangle, should be disturbing.
And it is.
But it is not entirely unplanned.
Getting Shots for Roy Hibbert
Before Saturday night’s game against the Kings, Candace Buckner of the Indianapolis Star brought up Roy Hibbert’s performance against the Knicks (18 points, 10 rebounds, 9-for-11 shooting). She asked Coach Vogel if he was content with Hibbert taking so many outside shots.
“We certainly want to get [Hibbert] shots in the paint,” Vogel responded. “When possible.”
In a follow up, Buckner asked how much Hibbert’s ability (or inability) to establish good, deep position drove the quality of the looks the big man gets.
“That’s a big part of it,” said Vogel. “That’s going to be his struggle his whole career. Guys are going to get into his body. He’s got great length, so smaller defenders are going to try to get into his body and push him off the spots. It’s a tough thing to get position against a smaller, quicker guy that’s intent to beat you to spots. He’s got to continue to work on that and try to establish himself.”
And work they do, but that takes time and space — neither of which is provided in abundance by the moribund Pacer offense. Indiana is continually trying to manufacture shots, and Hibbert is as good as any other candidates they have for more shots.
As you can see from the chart above, Roy’s field goal attempts (per 100 possessions) are up significantly from last season, rising to 20.0 this year after a career low 16.2 in 2013-14. That’s almost four more attempts per 100.
“I have encouraged his perimeter jump shot more this year than in the past,” Vogel said. “There’s no question about it.”
Year-over-year, the shift in percentage mix away from shots at the rim and towards long 2s has less to do with substitution and more to do with simply getting Roy more looks. In other words, most of the increase on long twos represent incremental shots.
“I have encouraged his perimeter jump shot more this year than in the past,” Vogel said. “There’s no question about it.”
Vogel continued, making it clear that he was looking to get his big man more opportunities to score.
“[Hibbert] is a good shooter, and the way this league plays pick-and-roll defense — they keep their bigs in the paint,” Vogel said. “It is one way to take advantage of one of his skill sets and get him a few more looks.”
This approach has seen some success.
At 45.3%, Hibbert is shooting well above league average from 3 to 10 feet of 38.6%. He is also better than the norm from 16 feet to the arc, making 44.3% compared to 39.6%.
His 32.1% shooting from the 10-16 foot range is well below the 40.2% league mark, but that may be a function of long jump hooks and turnarounds born of his inability hold deep position in the post.
Is this a sign that Frank Vogel is backing away from his “power post” roots?
No, not even remotely.
According to Synergy, the Pacers remain one of the most active post teams in the league. Indiana is third in the Association in percentage of plays out of the post, with Roy Hibbert accounting for the lion’s share of that volume. Hibbert is among the league leaders in plays out of the post at 7.2 per game — up from 5.8 last season.
The problem is that “at the rim” attempts don’t really come out of post plays.
The post tends to generate shots between 3 and 15 feet, which have increased for Roy Hibbert this year. Getting shots at the rim is really a function moving the defense and getting on the offensive glass, not pounding the ball into the post.
Under Vogel, Roy Hibbert’s ability to grab offensive boards is what has, in the past, led to many of his at the rim tries. And for two years now, he has not been a good offensive rebounder.
Next: Part II: Offensive Boards, Shots at the Rim
Roy Hibbert’s Second Chances
The four-year trend shown in the chart below has clear implications: Roy Hibbert’s ability to get on the offensive glass has directly impacted his shots at the rim.
In his first two full seasons under Frank Vogel and his staff, Roy Hibbert became much more effective as an offensive rebounder. This was rewarded with a significant increase in “at the rim” attempts.
However, both have followed the same downward slope over the last two years, something we started to notice last year as the Pacers offensive started spiraling the drain.
This curve is further emphasized by Synergy data that shows Hibbert has only scored 10% of his points on putbacks this season — down 13% from even last year’s low totals and well below the 20% number he posted in the 2012-13 season.
Does one decline cause the other?
Frank Vogel was asked if the increased perimeter play was driving the drop in offensive rebounding.
Hibbert has only scored 10% of his points on putbacks this season — down 13% from even last year’s low totals and well below the 20% number he posted in the 2012-13 season.
“His offensive rebounding dropped last year, before we asked him to play on the perimeter more,” the Vogel said. “I think he’s just getting more attention. A couple years ago, he was a dominant offensive rebounder, so the league takes note. They understand if you don’t get a body on him early, he’s gonna hurt you.”
That increased attention probably isn’t limited to keeping him off the glass.
The 2013 Eastern Conference playoffs showed that Roy Hibbert — who averaged 17 points and 10 rebounds on 51% shooting — as a player who could hurt you at both ends. After that playoff run, opponents began to game plan for Roy in earnest.
Any increased attention would detract from offensive rebounding opportunities. A quick look at the top five career offensive rebounders (by offensive rebounding percentage) shows you Moses Malone (at #2) surrounded by non-scorers: Dennis Rodman (1), Larry Smith (3), Jeff Foster (4) and Chris Dudley (5). (Former Pacer Dale Davis also clocks in at 7th.)
Another factor here is the Pacers defense — both in its physical nature and in the focus given to it by the coaching staff. Hibbert’s mastery of verticality necessarily results in constant collisions and falls. Does this take away from the big man’s ability to get position offensively or get offensive rebounds?
“I think [that’s true] for all of our guys,” Vogel said. “[We] look at how to improve our motor on the offensive end, but we demand a lot of them on the defensive end. All of them. One through five. We make them work. When you’re working that hard for 23, 24 seconds on the defensive end — chasing and being in a stance, being on point with all of your assignments — it probably takes a little bit of our offensive legs.”
But don’t expect the Pacers to sacrifice at the defensive end to shore up the offense.
“I know that defense wins for us,” Vogel said.
Are the Pacers Doing What Opponents Want?
It takes no great leap of imagination to believe that opposing defenses are giving Roy Hibbert jump shots. Even if he is making them at a good clip, it is still a relatively low percentage look. Plus, it takes Hibbert off the offensive glass, and it reduces the chances for a foul.
Are teams forcing this shot to him?
“I wouldn’t say ‘forcing’ it to him,” Vogel said, “but I’d say 80% of the teams in this league keep their center in the paint on pick-and-rolls.”
Most teams are probably fine with Hibbert getting uncontested 17-footers — within reason — while Frank Vogel and the Pacers would far prefer that the Big Fella’s shot distribution look more like it did two years ago.
Unfortunately, Vogel doesn’t have many more attractive options.
The Pacer coach finished his answer by adding, “If we had elite, perimeter pick-and-roll players — perimeter attackers — then probably more stuff would be freed up. It’s just a way to get him some looks.”
That lack of options is really at the root of all of the Pacers’ problems.
Symptoms of a Larger Issue
Adjusting Roy Hibbert’s shot selection is a reasonable patch by itself. But when taken as part of the larger Pacers offensive environment, it is just one more set of compromises Indiana is being forced to make.
It is impossible to disagree with Vogel’s assessment of the Pacers’ perimeter players’ skill sets. With George Hill missing all but 10 games so far this year, Rodney Stuckey, Donald Sloan, and a hobbled C.J. Watson have shouldered the bulk of the ball-handling duties. This is a group that strikes fear into absolutely no one.
The Pacers rank 23rd out of 30 teams in both “drives per game” and “points per 48 minutes from drives,” while sitting 24th in field-goal percentage on drives. Given these numbers, the Blue and Gold’s perimeter “attack” can more accurately be described as a “polite inquiry.”
One indicator of the ineffectiveness of Indiana’s perimeter attack can be seen in perusing SportVU’s driving statistics. The Pacers rank 23rd out of 30 teams in both “drives per game” and “points per 48 minutes from drives,” while sitting 24th in field-goal percentage on drives. The Blue and Gold’s perimeter “attack”can more accurately be described as a “polite inquiry.”
This issue is further exacerbated by the team’s inability to hit shots.
At 32.3%, the Pacers stand 25th in the NBA in 3-point shooting. Successful drive-and-kicks generated by this offense often die in the hands of Stuckey (33.3% behind the arc), C.J. Miles (31.1%), or Solomon Hill (30.2%).
And due to the team’s lack of players who can create for themselves, Indiana gets a league-leading 30 catch-and-shoot attempts per game. Unfortunately, they only generate an eFG% of 47.4% on these shots, which ranks them 23rd in the NBA.
The long and short of all these numbers related to driving and shooting is that the Pacers do neither well. They cannot attack the rim nor can they hit jumpers. And an offense without those two threats is really no offense at all.
Next: Part III: The Ball Movement Solution
Ball Movement No Substitute for Talent
With the losses of Paul George and Lance Stephenson, it was obvious coming into the season that the Pacers would struggle at the offensive end. The 83 player games lost among four other key Pacers player (George Hill, David West, C.J. Watson and C.J. Miles) only dug a deeper hole.
Vogel’s response to the lost firepower has been to emphasize ball movement.
A big part of defeating a defense your ability to “move” the defense. Rotations and adjustments weaken a defense, and passing the ball is the best opportunity that Indiana — a team without any dynamic ball-dominant players — has to make this happen.
The Pacers have made a credible effort to keep the ball moving.
On a nightly basis, this year’s squad is making 5% more passes than last season’s team. It is also generating 17% more secondary assists and 11% more assist opportunities. This puts them 7th in both passes per game and secondary assists per game, and 6th in assist opportunities per game — very promising numbers.
Unfortunately, this increase ball movement has shown little return.
The Pacers only convert a little over 45% of their assist opportunities into actual assists. This puts them dead last in the Association. The rest of the league converts more than 50% of their opportunities into assists. No doubt, the team’s heinous 3-point and catch-and-shoot numbers play a significant role in this failure.
When it comes to offensive success, what the defense thinks your team can do is almost as important as what your team actually can do. Unfortunately, defenses rightly believe there is very little the Pacers can do that will actually hurt them, so there is very little reason for the defense to move.
Add Indiana’s inability to create easy buckets (27th in both points scored off turnovers and fast-break points), and you get an offense that scores only 98 points per 100 possessions. That’s 5 full points below the league average and good for 3rd worst in the NBA.
Somehow, even that depressing factoid fails to adequately communicate the dumpster fire that is the Pacers offense. Really, the offensive shortcomings become most readily apparent when contrasting it with the Pacers defensive performance.
Defense: Still Holding Strong
Despite the well-documented losses to their perimeter defensive core, Frank Vogel has managed to keep the Pacers in the top third of the league defensively. They allow just 101.1 points per 100 possession.
Even in their losses — 32 so far — the Pacers have allowed just 103.8 points per 100. The league average in losses is 108.9, and only four other teams allow fewer than 107.
Unbelievably, the Pacers have lost 12 times this season when holding an opponent below a point per possession. Worse: On two separate occasions, they’ve allowed fewer than 80 points per 100 — and still lost.
The contrast becomes even more starkly defined in January, where Indiana posted the 10th-best defense in the league while losing 11 of 16 games. In those losses, they allowed 101.9 points per 100. Milwaukee allowed 102.0 in their six losses, and no other team allowed fewer than 105.
Which brings us back to the team’s ongoing failure: Offense.
Here is what the Indiana Pacers offense has looked like in their 32 losses this season.
The Pacer offense has become necrotic, eating away at any chance of success the team has. Indiana has scored less than one point per possession in 26 of their 32 losses.
The return of George Hill does offer some hope.
With the Hometown Hero on the floor, Indiana has scored 108.3 points per 100. More promisingly, they have increased their points in the paint from 38 per 100 possessions to almost 44, and their fast-break points have jumped from 9 per 100 to almost 11.
These come with plenty of caveats, though.
First and foremost, it’s a small sample size number (226 minutes over 10 games). Secondly, Hill has played primarily as a reserve (and he’s been -14 in 38 minutes as a starter). Finally, it remains to be seen when (or if) he’ll be able to stay healthy.
That being said, George Hill will make both this offense and this team better. While he doesn’t provide a massive infusion of talent, Hill does bring several qualities at both ends — speed, physicality, shooting, intelligence — of which the Pacers are in desperately short supply.
Those things very likely could have been difference makers in some of the 10 losses of 3 points or less that Indiana has suffered this year. They very possibly can be difference makers in the remaining games this season.
But George Hill probably won’t make them “good.”
Because of that, Vogel will continue to try to figure ways to make do with what he has. He and his staff are tasked with generating points from a team that can neither effectively get to the basket, nor create spacing by forcing defenses to honor their outside shooting.
It’s an uphill battle, and the coach’s awareness of this leaked through in one of his answers.
“I don’t think it was really a sell job,” Vogel answered when asked if he had to convince Hibbert to look for more perimeter shots. “I think when we realized that we had so many bodies out, we needed to generate some offense from somewhere. We needed to be as creative as possible.”
And even that probably won’t be enough.
Statistical sources: NBA, Basketball-Reference, and Synergy (via @JailedFlynt)