Just How Affected are the Pacers in Losing Quisy and Jack?

[Note by Cornrows, 09/05/09 6:48 AM EDT - From the FanPosts, goodlucksaturday takes a closer look at the Pacers without Jarrett Jack and Marquis Daniels. ]

Much is being made of the Indiana Pacers loss of Jarrett Jack and Marquis Daniels. On the surface, that’s 26.7 PPG that are just not there anymore. From a team that averaged 105 PPG last season, are the Pacers set to average about 78 points this year? And do the Pacers have the spots filled in to make up the difference?

I want to cover that, in an attempt to see if the loss of Marquis Daniels’s and Jarrett Jack’s offense will result in a less capable offense, considering both essentially being replaced by Dahntay Jones and Earl Watson who don’t have offensive reputations like Daniels and Jack do.

The first thing I think should be cleared up is the idea that the 26.7 combined average of the two players is what we could expect, on average, from the two players. In fact, below is the list of every game in which both players combined for 27 points in the same game:

November 5, 2008 – vs. Phoenix: Daniels, 19; Jack, 8 (L)
November 12, 2008 – at New Jersey: Daniels, 16; Jack, 13 (W)
November 21, 2008 – vs. Orlando: Daniels, 25; Jack, 5 (L)
November 22, 2008 – at Miami: Daniels, 25; Jack, 8 (L)
November 28, 2008 – vs. Charlotte: Daniels, 20; Jack, 10 (L)
December 7, 2008 – vs. Boston: Daniels, 26; Jack, 17 (L)
December 15, 2008 – at Washington: Daniels, 20; Jack, 16 (W)
December 17, 2008 – vs. Golden State: Daniels, 23; Jack, 24 (W)
December 26, 2008 – at Memphis: Daniels, 28; Jack, 6 (L)
December 30, 2008 – vs. Atlanta: Daniels, 11; Jack, 22 (L)
January 2, 2009 – at New York: Daniels, 13; Jack, 29 (W)
February 18, 2009 – at Charlotte: Daniels, 14; Jack, 18 (L)
February 20, 2009 – at Minnesota: Daniels, 24; Jack, 18 (W)
February 22, 2009 – vs. Chicago: Daniels, 16; Jack, 16 (W)
February 23, 2009 – at New York: Daniels, 28; Jack, 33 (L)
February 25, 2009 – vs. Memphis: Daniels, 14; Jack, 20 (W)
March 1, 2009 – vs. Denver: Daniels, 19; Jack, 28 (W)
March 3, 2009 – at Sacramento: Daniels, 18; Jack, 26 (W)
March 4, 2009 – at Portland: Daniels, 28; Jack, 17 (L)
March 7, 2009 – at LA Clippers: Daniels, 10; Jack, 25 (W)
March 10, 2009 – vs. Utah: Daniels, 7; Jack, 21 (L)

Essentially, in an 82-game schedule, Jack and Daniels combined for 27 points just 21 times in the season, and the team went 10-11 in those games. Both players reached their season average in the same game eight times less, resulting in a much more successful outing, as the team went 9-4 in those games.

But does a 9-4 "stretch" in an 82-game schedule really mean that much? Is it so black and white that losing those games take the Pacers from 36-46 to 31-51? It seems that even basketball-reference.com’s Win Shares agree that the five game difference in that 9-4 record makes up the sum total of the "contributions" both players made, as Jack is credited with 4.3 WS, while Daniels is credited with 1.4. So from a plus/minus situation, the Pacers can expect to be five games worse.

But that’s pure subtraction with no addition. If we go on that, then the loss of Rasho Nesterovic and Maceo Baston put the Pacers down another 3 wins, so on subtractions alone, we can expect a 28-54 record for the 2009-10 season. (As a side note, Stephen Graham was credited with 0.0 WS) But the fact is the Pacers did make additions, even as uneventful as they might be compared to the Ron Artests and Shaquille O’Neals moving around this offseason.

It seems unfair to bring in the WS for players on another team, in another system, for another coach, but the WS additions include 2.1 (D.Jones), -0.2 (Watson), and 1.9 (S.Jones), putting the Pacers at roughly 32-50 if Tyler Hansbrough and A.J. Price make absolutely no contributions, Mike Dunleavy is injured again all season (he led the team in WS in 07-08 with 9.0), and Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush don’t improve at all.

The fact is, however, the Pacers are set to improve with the talent they have. The issue at hand seems to be that the talent is a bit secondary. A bit "championship" minded without the "championship" crown jewels. Continuously believing that Granger can only be a second fiddle, that Hansbrough will work hard, but won’t be a contributor at all, and that Rush’s flurry at the end of the season was fluky and we should expect him to be more of the player he was most of last year, instead of showing growth in his second year.

Of course, that was the same thing last year. The team did perform. Had they had some more defensive presence or a little bit of help with injuries, perhaps they could’ve made the playoffs. Most of these factors will still be wearing the blue and gold in 2009-10.

But it can’t go without saying that the loss of Daniels and Jack do hinder the team’s offensive capabilities. There’s no denying the team is in fact worse offensively without those two players. The good news is that they are better defensively. The idea seems to be that the loss of Daniels and Jack’s offense cannot be offset by the improvement of defense by D.Jones and Watson, when in fact, it can.

It’s not entirely fair to say that losing Jack and Daniel’s capable offensive game is the same as losing their production. Marquis Daniels played in 54 games last season. Dahntay Jones played in 79. That’s 25 games where even limited offense is more help than not being on the floor at all. In addition, Daniels showed tremendous offensive capabilities when he started, and didn’t shine as a bench player. Though it’s not entirely fair to go on the straight minutes, here they are anyway before we work with them a bit:

Starting: 43 Games, 34.5 MPG, 15.3 PPG
Bench: 11 Games, 19.5 MPG, 6.8 PPG

Like I said, it’s not fair to look at the numbers directly and have it tell the story, but it does help showcasing the production. Daniels started 43 games in place of an injured Dunleavy and a "still trying to get it" Rush. That’s where he was able to produce. Off the bench, however, he put up numbers that can be covered fairly easily. But not only are the numbers down due to lack of minutes, the production is also down:

Start Per 36 Minutes: 43 Games, 15.9 PPG
Bench Per 36 Minutes: 11 Games, 12.5 PPG

Daniels offered almost three and a half points less of production when coming off the bench last season. The loss of Daniels’s offense can hurt the team, but only if they can’t rely on Mike Dunleavy or Brandon Rush for offense, which I believe they can (at least in Dunleavy’s case). It may be a product of an injured Daniels or a limited sample size, but even an injured Daniels helps prove the point that Daniels’s production, as valuable as it was when the team needed it, is not essential to the team’s success if they have their roster available.

It becomes more difficult to sugarcoat Jarrett Jack’s loss given the season Earl Watson had last season, buried deep on the bench in Oklahoma City. Jack played in all 82 games, played admirably in his time, but did answer defense by playing more offense. Watson is a defensive upgrade, as ever slight as it might be, and while the point production may not be there, again, like with Daniels and D.Jones, the defense can help minimize the need for offensive production.

Really, for the Pacers, it's all about options now. They didn’t have many defensive choices last season, and they were 36-46 because of that. They were a fast and exciting offensive team, but with no defense, they couldn’t be expected to be contenders, despite winning against the top five NBA teams last season. To sum it up again, the loss of Daniels and Jack takes away offensive options that were there before, but the addition of D.Jones and Watson adds defensive options that weren’t there before. The team won’t need to score big if they can defend big, and if they can defend big, playoff basketball will return to Indiana.