How the Pacers are using bait and switch tactics

Plus, the real of what one false action encapsulates about two players, being Andrew Nembhard and Bennedict Mathurin, at Summer League

By: Caitlin Cooper I @C2_Cooper

For those of you who have been staying up to date with Basketball, She Wrote since the beginning (you know, way back in February), you might remember that I'm a big fan of Gilmore Girls. After all, when I introduced this little venture of mine, I related an episode of that show, wherein Lorelai reveals that she saved notes in a hatbox of things she wanted to tell Rory once they made up following an extended period of estrangement, to my missed connection with you, my readers.

Well, now, I'm going to let you in on another little secret. I'm a lot more girlie than I come off and that wasn't the only series of that ilk that I watched while I was growing up. In fact, on the nights when there wasn't any zaniness going down in Stars Hollow, I filled the Gilmore Girls-shaped hole in my heart with Wildfire -- a far more obscure and far less witty show about two rival thoroughbred horse-farms that could roughly be described as a cross between The O.C. and Dallas. I'm not going to fangirl out and bore you with the details, because, in all honestly, there aren't that many details with which to bore you; but, here's what you need to know: there's an episode where one of the two male leads -- who, yes, are both vying for the same love-interest (surprise, surprise!) -- goes on a long road trip to purchase a horse that he's sure has the bloodlines to be a winner. After dropping a sizable chunk of change and loading up the prized-equine to head home, he checks on the thoroughbred after making a quick pitstop only to find out that the distinguishing white patch on the horse's forehead had been painted on.

*audible gasp*

It was a bait and switch!

So, what does that overly dramatic scene from an overly angsty teen-drama have to do with Summer League? Strange as it may seem, that painted horse has come to mind every time the Pacers have run a specific play that appears to be for Bennedict Mathurin while also involving Andrew Nembhard, only to contort the action into being for Andrew Nembhard while also involving Bennedict Mathurin. Confused? Think of it this way. As defenses begin to see more of the same action, offenses tend to respond by repeating that same action only with slight variation.

For example, look at the progression of this possession from the regular season against Portland. What starts out as "wide," with Jalen Smith screening away for Buddy Hield to come to the ball from the weak-side wing, turns into Hield intentionally rejecting that action to become the stack-screener.

Except, he doesn't actually become the stack-screener; he only presents as though he is going to become the stack-screener, before instead getting pulled out from the roller into a different action, being an exit screen. That's a deceptive design, which also serves as a shot across the bow to Portland's aggressive pick-and-roll coverage by creating a single-side tag. Notably, the Pacers aren't masking "stack" action, the "stack" action is the mask.

The same is starting to happen with what is commonly referred to as "Chicago" or "zoom," in which a player receives a pindown before receiving a hand-off, as is demonstrated here by Ben Sheppard.

Last season, when Tyrese Haliburton started possessions away from the ball, the Pacers moved to disguising the action, by having the player setting the pindown cut past him and then hook back into the screen, so as to be tricky against denials.

Of course, the end result wasn't always that smooth. Running on a curve before setting a screen requires coordination on behalf of both guards to actually make contact, and if Haliburton was unable to turn the corner, there were times when the Pacers could've been more proactive with off-ball cutting to burn the nail help.

With that in mind, look now at the painted horse of possessions. With the Pacers presenting as though they are about to launch into "Chicago" action, they're creating a gap between expectations and reality, as the defense is led to perceive something very different than what actually transpires. In this scenario, Mathurin would be the decision maker, receiving the pindown before receiving the hand-off.

But watch, *audible gasp* it's a bait and switch! The play isn't for Mathurin with Nembhard as the screener; it's for Nembhard with Mathurin play-acting the approach and becoming a possible would-be screener. That means, with the defense preparing to switch up the line against an entirely different action, Nembhard gets to choose his own adventure, picking between a flare on one side and a hand-off on the other.

In case that doesn't seem intentional, here's another look at the same false action. Mathurin feigns as though he is about to zoom around a pindown from Nembhard, only for Nembhard to emerge at the controls, moseying to his spot while playing at his own speed.

Oh, and he also made a pocket pass to Isaiah Jackson out of that play, as well.

To a certain degree, that play is more than just an innovative wrinkle, revealing the way in which offenses can stay ahead by looking like something else until the very last second; it's also somewhat of a microcosm for what Summer League turned out to be for Andrew Nembhard and perhaps should've been for Bennedict Mathurin -- at least with greater frequency.

After all, Nembhard suddenly flips from playing a role as the middle man to coming to the fore at the center of options, all while exuding an air of calm, whereas Mathurin, who was oftentimes too eager to score and didn't fully seem to understand his optimal use in this type of setting, can be seen playing within the team-context, making himself appear dangerous for the sake of his teammates.

In that sense, if those two things can carry over into the regular season, then that -- more so than the deceptive design of the action -- might be the actual bait and switch, providing real, tangible value.