When I was preparing for our pre-series preview coverage, I went back and looked at what I did for the Raptors-Nets and Raptors-Wizards series. We’ve seriously lucked out in terms of quality of opposing blogs to collaborate with, and this series is no different. One thing I didn’t get a chance to do last year, thanks to the, umm, brevity of the series was bring back the mid-series e-mail exchange I had done with The Brooklyn Game.
And I think that’s an important exercise. Raptors fans seem to be riding really high right now, and there’s good reason for that – the Raptors have put two quality wins together, grabbing a 2-1 series lead, and taking home-court advantage back after coughing up Game 1 at home. Still, imagine how you’d feel on the other side. You’d almost surely be searching for reasons for optimism and coming up with potential adjustments the Raptors could be making. I’d imagine those in the Pacers camp are doing just that, too, fueled by the strong play of Paul George and the knowledge that they executed in terrific form less than a week ago.
The Raptors are a better team, and they’ve looked it, but there’s still a lot of series left.
To help re-calibrate at the mid-way(-ish) point, we once again reached out to Jared Wade of 8 Points, 9 Seconds. You should really be checking out their pre- and post-game coverage for an alternate perspective.
—
Blake Murphy: Assuming the series so far hasn’t turned us into sworn enemies, let’s do this. I think a lot of what we talked about in our series preview has played out, and I think, given our predictions, 2-1 Raptors is roughly where we expected things through three games. Is there anything that stands out so far as something you didn’t expect, or something that’s surprised you?
Jared Wade: I have to say that I didn’t realize Jonas Valanciunas was this good. Don’t get me wrong. I always have liked his game and expected big things from him. I just think that, about two years ago, when his development seemed to somewhat plateau, I stopped thinking he could get to an All-Star level, which is where I thought he might go during his first two seasons. Perhaps I didn’t pay enough attention this season. I know he had career highs in some notable stat categories, but I guess mostly I just hadn’t seen this level of sustained physicality and … presence. Is this showing surprising people who watched 80 Raptors games this year as well?
The Pacers offense being *this* bad has also been, while not shocking, a bit deflating. After Game 1, I had my expectations raised a bit. They were shaky all year, with flashes of excellence amid plenty of garbage, and obviously Game 1 was mostly about the Paul George takeover. But this has been preposterous. Pacers not named Paul George are now shooting 51-for-138 (36.9%) in the series. C’mon. What is that? Do the Raptors have the Spurs’ defense now?
Blake Murphy: The Raptors do not. I do think that the No. 11-ranking on defense understated their potential at that end when DeMarre Carroll was back and engaged, but yeah, the Pacers are in a world of hurt outside of George. This, at least Games 2 and 3, is the best the Raptors’ defense has looked all season.
As for Valanciunas, he’s been a really divisive figure in the Raptors fanbase (and, per Zach Lowe, apparently the front office, in terms of his prominence). That’s mostly because his defense has been a little slow to come along, but also because his usage isn’t all that high, so it’s easy to forget just how good he can be with the touches he gets. He’s subtly improved in a number of important areas that don’t necessarily show up int he numbers. This is about a best-case scenario through three games. It’s been great.
Maybe these two points go together, and we’ve talked about potential Valanciunas adjustments already. The way I see it, the Pacers don’t have the personnel to contain Valanciunas with Ian Mahinmi at less than 100 percent (or even with him). Is the answer for them to embrace going smaller, eschewing the rebounding edge and looking to goose the offense to counter? And I don’t even mean just Myles Turner at the four, which sounds like the move Frank Vogel will make – I’m talking C.J. Miles or Solomon Hill at the four, and maybe even Turner shifting to starting at the five. It’s risky inside, but it might get the offense going. (And the Hill-Ellis-George-Hill-Turner group has looked pretty solid.)
Jared Wade: Prince is dead so does anything even matter? We’re just going to keep watching basketball like he’s alive?
For the “pretty-solid lineup” you mention, I have to admit even I was confused reading that list. How do non-Pacers followers keep track of Paul George and George Hill and Solomon Hill and Jordan Hill and Myles Turner and CJ Miles. It’s exhausting really.
I am curious to see what a George Hill, Monta, PG, CJ, Turner starting unit would do. I think Turner starting Game 4 is a given. He started the second half in place of Lavoy Allen down low alongside Ian Mahinmi, who looked more mobile in Game 3 than in Game 2, but still limited by his sore back. So the question is whether Vogel stays uber-big with the Turner/Mahinmi twin towers or goes small. The lineup you note, with Solo, would be the safer one, while having C.J. Miles there would be the better chance at opening the game by actually putting some points on the board.
And since the matchup would presumably be Luis Scola, either of those guys could do just as good of a job. Of course, Toronto could adjust be getting some post-ups for Luis, but if you’ve pushed Dwane Casey to go away from the All-Stars and Valanciunas, you’ve kind of already won the strategic matchup battle anyway, even if Scola flips in a few crafty, scoop shots around the rim.
The upside of CJ Miles spacing the floor and hitting a few 3s in the first quarter, however, is vast. If that happens, PG attacks the hoop, Myles Turner does some spacing with long 2s, and Indiana forces a steal or two? There is the potential for a decent lead at home with a loud crowd building momentum that could carry the team to a great first half.
Blake Murphy: Yeah, I’ve been having a tough time with the Prince news, too. I even went for a 2 a.m. walk when I saw the CN Tower was purple, then realized it was for the Queen, and that the lights were already off.
That’s my fear, at least for game four, that the Pacers do some combination of the tweaks we’ve discussed. I think the Raptors are well-equipped to match those lineups, mind you, but Dwane Casey seems pretty set on starting Scola and made some strange, vague comment about Patrick Patterson having “this thing about starting” yesterday. Patterson isn’t playing enough, in my opinion, and would not only be a nice counter to Turner, Hill, or Miles/George at the four (he’s proven effective guarding power threes this year), but a nice counter to the weakside help Indiana sent at some Valanciunas pick-and-rolls in Game 3.
But Casey probably won’t make that move until what they’re currently doing proves ineffective, and the Raptors might be able to beat up on Indiana’s second unit even more to account for the loss of an edge to start halves.
By the way, if Allen moves to the bench, is he playing at all? My assumption is if Scola leaves the starting unit, he’s pretty much done, and I’m wondering if Vogel may feel the same about Allen. Semi-related: Where does Jordan Hill fit in all of this? I’m not a big fan of his game, but as a rebounding spark off the bench, he might be able to play some backup center minutes, no?
Jared Wade: Yeah, I can see the same. It’s funny: I imagine the bulk of people just tuning into the Pacers season for the postseason (a) barely know who Lavoy Allen is, (b) can’t fathom why he is in the rotation, and (c) think it’s comical he is starting. There are only two real rationales for it.
The first is that he has the best on-court net rating on the team, meaning the team was 6.9 points per 100 possessions better in his 1,599 minutes on the floor than when he sat. Both sides of the ball were impressive, with an offensive rating of 105.1 and a defensive rating of 98.2. Paul George, by comparison, only posted a 3.3 net rating. Second, he was inserted into the starting lineup, in place of Turner, with 7 games left in the season. The Pacers had recently lost by double digits to the Nets and were fresh off a 20-point home annihilation to the Magic. Vogel said they needed a change and that was it. And with the team fighting for its playoff life, the team closed the year winning six of their final seven games. Now, those wins were mainly against trash teams (two vs. the Knicks, and wins over the Sixers, Nets, and Bucks), but results are results. Plus they won Game 1 in Toronto.
But that tedious explanation to defend Vogel’s decisions aside, yeah, Lavoy has done nothing in this series, and a change back is in order. And like you, I don’t see much reason for him to play at all. Jordan Hill, who was removed from the rotation in that same post-Magic-loss shakeup, can at least put the ball in the hole and draw fouls. So Vogel should be going with only Turner, Mahinmi, Jordy Hill, and smalls at the 4 and 5 spots from now on.
It’s funny about Pat Pat. I keep wondering why he isn’t playing more and as much appreciation as I have for Scola as a pro, he really isn’t bringing anything to the table. There seems to be a similar rationale from Casey: It’s “working” so why change anything? I’m not sure if conservative, or perhaps, change-averse is a fair description for Dwane, but that certainly applies to Vogel. But now his hand is forced. After the awful showings in the past 96 minutes, he has to do something.
Though I’m not sure what it will be precisely, I’m pretty sure we’ve touched on it here at some point. And I’m certainly intrigued to find out, first off, what it is and, even more so, if it will change the tenor of a series that now belongs entirely to yall Canadians.
Blake Murphy: Yup. Game 4 is huge. The series isn’t going back to Indiana if Toronto wins, but a Pacers bounce-back would certainly tighten the nerves back up on this side.
