How the Pacers are switching it up against switches (Patreon)

And why it isn't quite as, ahem, blurry

By: Caitlin Cooper I @C2_Cooper

As you might recall, the Pacers were held under 100 points for the first time this season last week against the Chicago Bulls. It was the final game of a five-game road trip, and the Pacers definitely looked like a team playing the final game of a five-game road trip. Nothing to see here, right? To borrow from Rick Carlisle, "The windshield is way bigger than the two little rearview mirrors. You got to keep looking ahead." That said, while the past of most everything from that game is better left in the past, there was one very telling possession from the second half that, when further explored, sheds light on an intriguing development in the present while also perhaps shaping what may be to come in the future.

Here's what happened. Trailing by 17 points in the third quarter (I know, I know, stay with me), the Pacers went to a staple of their playbook: wide-reject-stack. Before diving into the nitty gritty of the moving parts, remember that this particular play hasn't been as feasible of late with Tyrese Haliburton as the ball-handler -- especially during the span of time when Doug McDermott and Ben Sheppard were both sidelined. That's because, at least among the starters, Haliburton is the most credible movement shooter, which means he is more often charged with setting the stack screen and leaking out to the wing rather than leading the charge, as he so often did prior to when Buddy Hield was traded. In this case, Aaron Nesmith is filling that role, intentionally rejecting the high cross screen from Turner to instead flip around and set the stack-screen for Turner as the roll-man. The only problem is, Chicago committed two defenders to the ball and then triple switched to neutralize the action, with Alex Caruso bumping out to Nesmith, DeMar DeRozan fronting the post, and Nikola Vucevic putting a cork on the ball. Put simply, nothing was doing.

Granted, if Siakam had flashed to the high paint, Turner might've been able to get a touch out of a high-low pass, but that isn't guaranteed with how DeRozan was battling. Plus, that isn't the primary way that the Pacers connect to the next action. This is. With Haliburton aborting his dribble, he passes the ball and then gets it back, retreating toward half-court to attack the big defender. At the same time, Nesmith does his best Hield impression, blurring in front of the ball so as to ghost the switch and create hesitation.

By comparison, that's an improvement over the process from the end of the Cavs game, when the Pacers were no longer a blur and Haliburton was left trying to spin his tires on the perimeter, but there isn't much of a reaction from the defense. Of course, even by the standard of non-contact screens, that isn't also much of a screen -- and the Bulls treated it as such. All too often, Nesmith doesn't actually brush the on-ball defender. As he blurs by, he just kind of relocates with a more circuitous route, which generally allows the switched big to stay square. As such, Caruso simply applied the principle of "no screen, no scheme," running with Nesmith, before then also straying from Nesmith and parking himself in Haliburton's potential driving lane. In that regard, while Vucevic deserves credit for staying in front of the ball, he also got plenty of help from the gap help, both to his right and left, as well as to his right again.

To be fair, Turner is capable of making those shots over smaller defenders, but that's also what the Bulls were willing to give up: a semi-contested, late-clock three in-exchange for creating a no-fly zone in the paint. Another advantage for Chicago? Haliburton ends up giving up the ball and Siakam never touched it. Again, the rearview mirror is smaller than the windshield. A single possession from a single loss shouldn't detract from the road ahead, but it can provide clarity, at least insomuch as the correct potential turns for the Pacers might not be as (blur)ry - both figuratively and literally.

For example, take this possession from the very next game. Rather than wide-reject-stack, the Pacers are running standard spread pick-and-roll. That isn't important, except, maybe, for the fact that wide-reject-stack continues to not be as go-to with Haliburton in the driver's seat as it once was. At any rate, the Lakers switch the ball-screen, just as the Bulls also did. Likewise, Haliburton passes the ball along and gets it back, just as he also did against the Bulls, but that's where the similarities stop.

Following the switch, rather than blurring in front of the ball for Haliburton to attack the big defender, the Pacers play through Siakam coming up from the corner. That tactic puts Siakam in position to dribble directly at the switched big, which preys on the natural tendency of bigs to help on penetration. If that's Nembhard, he might not have the size to make a difficult kick-out over or around the big, but that isn't an issue for Siakam, who can shield his dribble and reach out to complete the pass with his length.

Taken altogether, Haliburton is set-up to attack the switched big via a closeout as opposed to attempting to get an edge 1-on-1. Additionally, look at Nembhard. Just because he isn't the player dribbling at the big, doesn't mean he isn't playing a role in reshaping the defense around Haliburton. As Siakam is drawing the help, Haliburton is standing mostly stationary, holding his spot. As a result, the opportunity is there for help to come off the corner. To counter, Nembhard cuts to the dunker's spot, with Nesmith replacing him in the corner.

In the end, Haliburton has plenty of space to stop and pop, but if he needed to attack the closeout off the dribble, that would serve to remove or punish the stunt. All of which is to say that, Haliburton and Siakam are both simultaneously involved and mutually benefiting from each other, which is obviously a distinction from how they attacked the switch against the Bulls. In that sense, for a team that has at least clinched a spot in the play-in tournament, there's reason to glance in the rearview mirror, looking backward at the progress that could potentially chart a path forward, while still pushing full steam ahead.