PDA

View Full Version : If Ron is such a difference maker...



brichard
01-12-2006, 11:04 PM
...then why don't we miss him that much?

I'm not mitigating his talent, but as we continue to put together a similar amount of W's and L's, we don't seem to have drifted off the map. And if he is such a key player, one would expect the lack of his presence to mean more.

I keep reading that Ron is going to turn somebody into a Championship team, and I'm just not seeing that make sense with the data we have. However, I realize that everything is contingent on the "right situation."

I know we are deeper than most teams and that helps us sustain his loss better, but as everyone has mentioned in trade scenarios, you don't trade 2 "B" players for 1 "A" player. I think Ron has "A" talent, but his head brings him down to a "B" overall ... or worse depending on the situation.

This has probably already been discussed, but I was just pondering it a bit.

Anthem
01-12-2006, 11:14 PM
Granger.

.

Third line.

Unclebuck
01-12-2006, 11:15 PM
The team this season with Ron was never right. Chemistry was horrible probably because of Ron.

But if you want to see Ron's real impact compare this current team to the one that won 61 games.

SoupIsGood
01-12-2006, 11:51 PM
Granger.



Yes

Roy Munson
01-13-2006, 12:58 AM
The team this season with Ron was never right. Chemistry was horrible probably because of Ron.

But if you want to see Ron's real impact compare this current team to the one that won 61 games.

I contend that the 61 game season was a bit of an aberation based largely on the fact that the Eastern Conference was pitifully weak that year.

Cleveland was doing anything yet.

Shaq didn't play for Miami.

New Jersery was a joke.

Milwaukie was MUCH weaker.

There were many many wins that season that happened not becuase of what the Pacers were doing, but because the opponent had very little to offer in terms of resistance.

Yes, the Pacers were good that year. But I think they were only 4 or 5 games better than they are right now, as currently assembled.

Peck
01-13-2006, 02:17 AM
The team this season with Ron was never right. Chemistry was horrible probably because of Ron.

But if you want to see Ron's real impact compare this current team to the one that won 61 games.

I'm going to buy you a T-shirt that says that.

Jose Slaughter
01-13-2006, 02:37 AM
I think there are several factors....

1. Foster was out at the beginning of the year, he is just now returning & while our better play may not be his doing, he is helping the cause.

2. Adding Granger & Jasikevicius has been a major plus.

3. Croshere has really stepped up his game this year. He has never shot the ball this well before. His FG% numbers are up from .378 to .460. His 3pt FG% numbers are also a career best .405, up from .259 last season.

FreshPrince22
01-13-2006, 04:46 AM
I gotta say that the team playing fine without Artest is probably really killing his value a bit. Pacers should have tanked after Artest left to make it look like he's incredibly important to them.

GetOdom
01-13-2006, 04:50 AM
I gotta say that the team playing fine without Artest is probably really killing his value a bit. Pacers should have tanked after Artest left to make it look like he's incredibly important to them.

We all know you were wishing that was the case, but in your point it's Delightful but to us, it's not Ron was Important to this team, but we have All-star's on this team and we have Rookie's making Impact...

I like your posts FP but this wasn't a post that Impressed me.

larry
01-13-2006, 05:28 AM
artest drinks sailor jerry's!!

FreshPrince22
01-13-2006, 05:30 AM
We all know you were wishing that was the case, but in your point it's Delightful but to us, it's not Ron was Important to this team, but we have All-star's on this team and we have Rookie's making Impact...

I like your posts FP but this wasn't a post that Impressed me.



First of all, the post was meant to be a joke. As for me wanting the Pacers to tank... That's not the case at all. In fact, If you look through the history of my posts... In the very first thread that broke the news about Artest demanding a trade I said that you guys would be a better TEAM without him. I don't want the Pacers to tank at all. I would miss the playoff battles too much. And I look forward to another one this year (if all goes well).

larry
01-13-2006, 05:35 AM
battles w/ the knicks were the best.

DG-33
01-13-2006, 06:03 AM
I contend that the 61 game season was a bit of an aberation based largely on the fact that the Eastern Conference was pitifully weak that year.

Cleveland was doing anything yet.

Shaq didn't play for Miami.

New Jersery was a joke.

Milwaukie was MUCH weaker.

There were many many wins that season that happened not becuase of what the Pacers were doing, but because the opponent had very little to offer in terms of resistance.

Yes, the Pacers were good that year. But I think they were only 4 or 5 games better than they are right now, as currently assembled.
Pacers had a better winning percentage vs the tough Western conference that year.

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 07:49 AM
I'm going to buy you a T-shirt that says that.



I'd wear it proudly.


As far as the 61 win season being an aberation. That to me is garbage. You don't win 61 games games with smoke and mirrors. The Pacers were very good agaisnt the west that season. It just makes no sense to me.

Pacersfan46
01-13-2006, 08:25 AM
Why would anyone be surprised we're sustaining without Artest?

Last year we hung in the playoff chase without Artest, Jackson, and Jermaine. It shouldn't take a Mensa member to see it wasn't going to kill us.

brichard
01-13-2006, 08:34 AM
Why would anyone be surprised we're sustaining without Artest?

Last year we hung in the playoff chase without Artest, Jackson, and Jermaine. It shouldn't take a Mensa member to see it wasn't going to kill us.

Hmmmm... are you comparing our barely making it to the playoffs last year with our winning 61 games the year before? Sure this team can survive and eek into the playoffs, but I am contending that with the team this year, our W's and L's are pretty similar with or without Ron. I don't think anybody could say that about our team last year. They limped along and rallied, but they weren't near the force they were a year before.

Pacersfan46
01-13-2006, 08:38 AM
I never even mentioned the 61 win season.

I was comparing our year last year, to this year without Artest. I have no clue where you got anything about the 61 win season out of my post.

sixthman
01-13-2006, 08:44 AM
The Pacers are sharing the ball better now. Jack and JO are actually sometimes making the extra pass. Who is to say that this wouldn't have eventually happened with Ron here? What I am saying is Ron's trade value has no correlation with the number of games we are winning.

PacerMan
01-13-2006, 08:55 AM
The Pacers are sharing the ball better now. Jack and JO are actually sometimes making the extra pass. Who is to say that this wouldn't have eventually happened with Ron here? What I am saying is Ron's trade value has no correlation with the number of games we are winning.


I'll say that wouldn't have eventually happened with Ron here................. :)

croz24
01-13-2006, 09:46 AM
do we need to look at the plus/minus stats again...per 48 min this yr the pacers are +10.4 pts w/ artest on the court and -.2 w/ him off. the only other player at - when they're off the court is croshere. jo is only +4.9 when he's on the court and +1.5 off. to put this in perspective in terms of the nba...the only players w/ a higher per 48 min on court +/- playing at least 500 min are the pistons starting 5, bobby jackson, boris diaw, manu ginobili, and robert horry. i think this stat alone should answer your question. now answer me this...do you honestly believe the pacers can hang w/ the top conteders w/out artest?

brichard
01-13-2006, 11:30 AM
I never even mentioned the 61 win season.

I was comparing our year last year, to this year without Artest. I have no clue where you got anything about the 61 win season out of my post.

We are comparing 2 very different things. I am comparing the level of play last year with Artest and our level of play without. We started last year playing the same level of basketball that led to our 61 win season the year before. The night of the brawl we were taking it to the defening NBA champions on their home floor. Though we lost 3 key players for a chunk of the season, we ended the season with everybody minus Artest. We were no longer a championship contender, but more a low seed playoff team. So, our level of play dropped without Artest.

This year we were a middle of the pack seed with Artest and we are a middle of the pack seed without Artest. We have not seen the dropoff that one would expect. This year we have maintained our level of play without Artest.

You on the other hand are comparing the resiliency of this team when a key member leaves. I have never doubted the ability of this team to make the playoffs without Ron Artest. However, I did expect our level of play to decrease without him.

Sorry, but this is why I was confused by your response.

Shade
01-13-2006, 11:33 AM
See also: Bryant, Kobe - 45 points

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 11:36 AM
This year we were a middle of the pack seed with Artest and we are a middle of the pack seed without Artest. We have not seen the dropoff that one would expect. This year we have maintained our level of play without Artest.




Yes we have maintained our level of play, but I think the aberation or problem is not right now, but it was the first part of this season when Ron was playiong. They were clearly underachieving and were having major chemitry problems. The team now is starting to play up to their capabilities something the team this season with Artest never aproached.

Shade
01-13-2006, 11:46 AM
Yes we have maintained our level of play, but I think the aberation or problem is not right now, but it was the first part of this season when Ron was playiong. They were clearly underachieving and were having major chemitry problems. The team now is starting to play up to their capabilities something the team this season with Artest never aproached.

Problem is, I highly doubt this year's team, as it currently stands, is anywhere near as good as 2004's 61-win team. And the Pistons are better.

Proving once again that you have to sometimes go for the win NOW, because it's hard to duplcate a season like that one.

brichard
01-13-2006, 11:47 AM
Yes we have maintained our level of play, but I think the aberation or problem is not right now, but it was the first part of this season when Ron was playiong. They were clearly underachieving and were having major chemitry problems. The team now is starting to play up to their capabilities something the team this season with Artest never aproached.

This is what is so strange to me. The Pacers lineup is not grossly different from the lineup in 2004 when chemistry was not a problem.

We started:

PG- Tinsley This year PG- Tinsley
SG- Miller This year SG- Jax
SF- Artest This year SF- Artest
C- Foster This year C- Foster
PF- O'Neal This year PF- O'Neal

So, we only made one key change in the starting lineup, yet the chemistry between these guys is now missing? JO was even talking about how much better Ron was blending in with the guys on and off the court. Plus, we have Austin playing much better than he did in 2004.

What changed so drastically to make these guys not play well together on the court? Perhaps Ron was right when he said that he would never be the same in Indiana after the brawl. Try as they might, maybe Ron's teammates just couldn't trust him enough to get back to where they once were.

What do you think it is Buck?

Shade
01-13-2006, 11:56 AM
This is what is so strange to me. The Pacers lineup is not grossly different from the lineup in 2004 when chemistry was not a problem.

We started:

PG- Tinsley This year PG- Tinsley
SG- Miller This year SG- Jax
SF- Artest This year SF- Artest
C- Foster This year C- Foster
PF- O'Neal This year PF- O'Neal

So, we only made one key change in the starting lineup, yet the chemistry between these guys is now missing? JO was even talking about how much better Ron was blending in with the guys on and off the court. Plus, we have Austin playing much better than he did in 2004.

What changed so drastically to make these guys not play well together on the court? Perhaps Ron was right when he said that he would never be the same in Indiana after the brawl. Try as they might, maybe Ron's teammates just couldn't trust him enough to get back to where they once were.

What do you think it is Buck?

Well, let's observe the omissions from that 2004 team:

Reggie Miller
Al Harrington
Peanut Butter
Kenny Anderson
Mike Brown

Does the answer lie somewhere in there?

RWB
01-13-2006, 12:00 PM
What changed so drastically to make these guys not play well together on the court? .


Subtract Al and add SJax. Not saying Stephen is the bad guy here, rather maybe Al just fit better with the guys.

Peck
01-13-2006, 12:05 PM
Do we get to hang the 61 win season banner next to the NBA's loudest 6th man banner?

How about this. We stop comparing our team against that team & ask if we are as good as the team that went to the NBA Finals.

I'll let you know that answer now. No, we are nowhere around that team yet.

However, I do believe with time & maybe the right trade we will be.

Here is the final word on that 61 win team.

With Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

Without Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

ChicagoJ
01-13-2006, 12:06 PM
Al may have been a ballhog, but his teammates loved him anyway.

Not sure what the guys really think of SJax, and its now clear they didn't like Ron.

Kinda makes me wonder if some of the guys wanted Al to get his starting spot back after he recovered from the knee injury. I know he wasn't really a "small forward" anymore - I'm not saying it would have worked. But there's a guy that was well-liked in the lockerroom who lost his starting spot while injured (and was eventually traded away) in favor of a guy that wasn't liked (and perhaps was traded for a guy that isn't liked.)

Shade
01-13-2006, 12:06 PM
Do we get to hang the 61 win season banner next to the NBA's loudest 6th man banner?

How about this. We stop comparing our team against that team & ask if we are as good as the team that went to the NBA Finals.

I'll let you know that answer now. No, we are nowhere around that team yet.

However, I do believe with time & maybe the right trade we will be.

Here is the final word on that 61 win team.

With Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

Without Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

The Pistons weren't as good last season as they were in 2004, IMO.

beast23
01-13-2006, 12:15 PM
I've seen reference after reference to our 61 win season.

For whatever reason, it always invokes someone to respond that our winning 61 games was a fluke.

Yet, no matter from what angle you view the wins and losses that season, we had a better winning percentage than ANY OTHER TEAM. Period.

For example, if the Western Conference was supposed to be so strong (which it was) and the Pacers 61 wins was a fluke, then how does one explain how we had a better winning percentage against WD teams than any WD team had against its own conference?

Sorry for the rant, but it honks me off when anyone tries to diminish what was accomplised that season.

As far as looking at last season and comparing it with and without Artest, I really don't think that provides a valid comparison. Artest only played in a handful of games.

The only thing that I can really say is that the team with Artest literally dismantled the Pistons on the night of the brawl a few days after getting blown out at home without Artest by over 30 points by the Clippers.

Assuming that Artest had played the entire season, and there had been no suspensions, I think that it is very likely that the Pacers would have finished a hell of a lot closer to 61 wins than 43 wins.

When Artest is putting his attention into competing on the court, I don't think that anyone could argue that a team is better off with him than without him.

Currently Saras and Granger are making major contributions... they are playing great. But make no mistake... they are rookies. They are expected to make mistakes on a more frequent basis than veteran players would make them.

But the current team with a half-sane Artest would provide more wins than we are currently producing. There would be chemistry problems and a crap-load of turmoil, but we probably would be producing more wins. It just wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable for the players nor for the fans.

Despite the deal following through or any comments made by players, Artest himself or the dozens of sportswriters, I don't think that Pacers will have any problem at all selling the value of what Ron Artest could potentially mean to any of the other teams.

brichard
01-13-2006, 01:29 PM
Al may have been a ballhog, but his teammates loved him anyway.

Not sure what the guys really think of SJax, and its now clear they didn't like Ron.

Kinda makes me wonder if some of the guys wanted Al to get his starting spot back after he recovered from the knee injury. I know he wasn't really a "small forward" anymore - I'm not saying it would have worked. But there's a guy that was well-liked in the lockerroom who lost his starting spot while injured (and was eventually traded away) in favor of a guy that wasn't liked (and perhaps was traded for a guy that isn't liked.)

Yeah, but it is funny. So many people are stoked about the prospect of getting Al back, when he wasn't all that popular when he left. Yes people liked him, but there was a lot more wanted out on the court.

He usually disappeared in the playoffs and people would cringe everytime he shot is turnaround jumper. I always liked Al for the energy he brought, but that is exactly why he was the perfect guy coming off the bench. Some of the greatest players in history (McHale) have spent time coming off the bench, so I'm not sure why it is such an issue with players. Al got his minutes when he was here.

brichard
01-13-2006, 01:31 PM
Do we get to hang the 61 win season banner next to the NBA's loudest 6th man banner?

How about this. We stop comparing our team against that team & ask if we are as good as the team that went to the NBA Finals.

I'll let you know that answer now. No, we are nowhere around that team yet.

However, I do believe with time & maybe the right trade we will be.

Here is the final word on that 61 win team.

With Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

Without Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

Well, I don't think you can have a thread discussing the value of Ron Artest without talking about the highs and the lows. The 61 win season was definitely the high and shows he can contribute on a winning team. Then there is that other stuff with him... :eek:

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 01:41 PM
What changed so drastically to make these guys not play well together on the court? Perhaps Ron was right when he said that he would never be the same in Indiana after the brawl. Try as they might, maybe Ron's teammates just couldn't trust him enough to get back to where they once were.

What do you think it is Buck?

That is exactly 100% correct. As J.O. mentioned he lost lots of money last year because of Ron, he had to go to court, his reputation was hurt. That made him bitter and his teammates bitter. So any little tiny thing that Ron did this season was just too much.

have you ever had a relationship where you lost all rrust in that person and try as you might any little thing would set you off, that is what happended here. And this was for the entire team not just J.O. and Ron.

Bball made the point over the summer about not being able to put this back together, he called it Himpty Dumpty falling off the wall. Too much damage had been done.

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 01:45 PM
Do we get to hang the 61 win season banner next to the NBA's loudest 6th man banner?

How about this. We stop comparing our team against that team & ask if we are as good as the team that went to the NBA Finals.

I'll let you know that answer now. No, we are nowhere around that team yet.

However, I do believe with time & maybe the right trade we will be.

Here is the final word on that 61 win team.

With Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.

Without Ron Artest & a limping J.O. & J.T. we went 6 games vs the Pistons.


Every 6 games playoff series loss is not the same. We had a chance in 2004, we had no chance in 2005. The 2004 lost for two reason, not quite ready mentally, and injuries. The 2005 team lost because they clearly weren't good enough.

MillerTime
01-13-2006, 01:49 PM
Ron Artest is the reason the Pacers were a contender. Now they are a pretender. They've been a team slightly above .500 beating on mediocre teams.

ChicagoJ
01-13-2006, 01:50 PM
-snip- Assuming that Artest had played the entire season, and there had been no suspensions, I think that it is very likely that the Pacers would have finished a hell of a lot closer to 61 wins than 43 wins.


Problem is, he'd already been "benched" for two games before that when he was going to quit. Or promote his CDs. Or got into a fist fight with JO. Or whatever you want to believe.

So if you are assigning probabilities to these assumptions, the probability that Ron would not have had any more supspensions last season would have be pretty low. But the probability that Ron's trade demand would've actually come last season (and knowing Ron, he probably would've made that demand right after the deadline) is pretty high.

+ + + + + + + + +

There's no doubt that last season's team looked superior on the court (during November). There's also no doubt in my mind that the team was going to crash-and-burn. If not in the Palace, then somewhere else.

ChicagoJ
01-13-2006, 01:56 PM
That is exactly 100% correct. As J.O. mentioned he lost lots of money last year because of Ron, he had to go to court, his reputation was hurt. That made him bitter and his teammates bitter. So any little tiny thing that Ron did this season was just too much.

have you ever had a relationship where you lost all rrust in that person and try as you might any little thing would set you off, that is what happended here. And this was for the entire team not just J.O. and Ron.

Bball made the point over the summer about not being able to put this back together, he called it Himpty Dumpty falling off the wall. Too much damage had been done.

The fact that all those things happened in Detroit right after Ron had quit on them or whatever you want to call it certainly makes it worse.

My point is, anybody that thinks the chemistry problems *began* when Ron returned to the team is kidding themselves. This team was a wreck, chemistry-wise, a long, long time ago.

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 02:18 PM
The fact that all those things happened in Detroit right after Ron had quit on them or whatever you want to call it certainly makes it worse.

My point is, anybody that thinks the chemistry problems *began* when Ron returned to the team is kidding themselves. This team was a wreck, chemistry-wise, a long, long time ago.


I don't think they were during the 2004 regular season. Maybe it started to unravel a little late in the Heat series and then in the Pistons series to some extent. But history will show the 11/19 incident was what tore the team apart more than anything else. Artest went from an annoyance and bother to a guy who cost players money, reputation and so on.

If 11/19 never happened (of course we have no idea what would have occurred during the last 5 months of last season) Ron would still be playing and things would have never gotten so bad.

many of you are underestimating the impact of 11/19.

PacerMan
01-13-2006, 02:26 PM
We are comparing 2 very different things. I am comparing the level of play last year with Artest and our level of play without. We started last year playing the same level of basketball that led to our 61 win season the year before. The night of the brawl we were taking it to the defening NBA champions on their home floor. Though we lost 3 key players for a chunk of the season, we ended the season with everybody minus Artest. We were no longer a championship contender, but more a low seed playoff team. So, our level of play dropped without Artest.

This year we were a middle of the pack seed with Artest and we are a middle of the pack seed without Artest. We have not seen the dropoff that one would expect. This year we have maintained our level of play without Artest.

You on the other hand are comparing the resiliency of this team when a key member leaves. I have never doubted the ability of this team to make the playoffs without Ron Artest. However, I did expect our level of play to decrease without him.

Sorry, but this is why I was confused by your response.


Just read we were 6-2 with Psycho. That's .750 winning percentage. We aren't playing that now.
(though I'm much happier)

PacerMan
01-13-2006, 02:31 PM
I don't think they were during the 2004 regular season. Maybe it started to unravel a little late in the Heat series and then in the Pistons series to some extent. But history will show the 11/19 incident was what tore the team apart more than anything else. Artest went from an annoyance and bother to a guy who cost players money, reputation and so on.

If 11/19 never happened (of course we have no idea what would have occurred during the last 5 months of last season) Ron would still be playing and things would have never gotten so bad.

many of you are underestimating the impact of 11/19.

BS. There was PLENTY of crap that happened before 11/19. To me the last straw was asking for time off to promote his album. He lost his teammates right there, as well as a whole bunch of fans. (like me) He would likely still be flagrant fouling and acting like a general Ahole if the brawl hadn't happened.
11/19 is much overstated as a cause of Artests problem.

PacerMan
01-13-2006, 02:35 PM
Ron Artest is the reason the Pacers were a contender. Now they are a pretender. They've been a team slightly above .500 beating on mediocre teams.


Ron is a very good basketball player that we'll all miss (on the court)
Unfortunately he's a psycho and team wrecker so we have to dump him.
What's your point?

beast23
01-13-2006, 02:38 PM
Every 6 games playoff series loss is not the same. We had a chance in 2004, we had no chance in 2005. The 2004 lost for two reason, not quite ready mentally, and injuries. The 2005 team lost because they clearly weren't good enough.
I usually agree with about everything you post.

But I think you forgot about something. The Pistons acquired Rasheed before the trade deadline in 2004. Despite our injuries and mental exhaustion, his acquisition is the reason we lost to Detroit.

As you might recall, several of the Pistons players stated that the Pacers were the toughest team that had faced in hte playoffs by far. I am a firm believer that if the Pistons had not acquired Rasheed, their X-factor, the Pacers would have won the title.

ChicagoJ
01-13-2006, 02:45 PM
I don't think they were during the 2004 regular season. Maybe it started to unravel a little late in the Heat series and then in the Pistons series to some extent. But history will show the 11/19 incident was what tore the team apart more than anything else. Artest went from an annoyance and bother to a guy who cost players money, reputation and so on.

If 11/19 never happened (of course we have no idea what would have occurred during the last 5 months of last season) Ron would still be playing and things would have never gotten so bad.

many of you are underestimating the impact of 11/19.

If you want to use the divorce analogy, then then 2002-03 season would be the year the problems all started. JO was going through some nasty family stuff, but he'd still show up and play, and watch this idiot get kicked out of games reguarly. If any player might've had an easy excuse for why he 'snapped', it would've been JO, that season. But no, he kept it together for the most part while Ron snapped.

In 2003-04, with a new coach, they decided to stay together 'because of the kids'. But things got ugly in the playoffs. The counseling was not working.

Early in the 2004-05 season, they hit really rough spot, and that was before 11/19.

Aside, I think you seriously underestimate just how bad the situation was prior to the Detroit game, what with Ron and JO punching each other and JO kicking Ron off the team plane and out of the lockerroom and all. Just because they happened to play well on the court does not diminish just how ugly it really was, chemistry-wise.

Then there was 11/19, and its been nothing more than a charade since then. 11/19 was the "end of the end", (although it took a while for the court to finalize the papers). It was certainly not "the beginning of the end."

Since86
01-13-2006, 03:30 PM
Title should actually read

"If Ron/Tinsley are such difference makers......."

Peck
01-13-2006, 04:13 PM
Every 6 games playoff series loss is not the same. We had a chance in 2004, we had no chance in 2005. The 2004 lost for two reason, not quite ready mentally, and injuries. The 2005 team lost because they clearly weren't good enough.

The hypocrisy of this statement is so thick I could cut it with a spork, that's right I said a spork.

You want to say that identical records mean nothing because you don't believe that one was as good as the other although the on court record does not show any differance.

Yet you want to dismiss any of us who claim the exact same thing for a season long record.

You don't see anything wrong with this??????

The 61 win season means nothing, zero, nadda.

It's just some mythical mark that only a few of you cling to for dear life as the zenith of what basketball should be about.

However, the reality is this. They lost to the Detroit Pistons in 6 games.

The team the very next season lost to the Detroit Pistons in 6 games.

Only in your mind is there a differance.

I'll say it now & repeat it as many times as you need me to.

The 61 win teams where nowhere near as good as any of the teams from the 94-00 season.

I doubt if the 04 team would have won one game vs. the 00 Pacers.

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 06:24 PM
I usually agree with about everything you post.

But I think you forgot about something. The Pistons acquired Rasheed before the trade deadline in 2004. Despite our injuries and mental exhaustion, his acquisition is the reason we lost to Detroit.

As you might recall, several of the Pistons players stated that the Pacers were the toughest team that had faced in hte playoffs by far. I am a firm believer that if the Pistons had not acquired Rasheed, their X-factor, the Pacers would have won the title.


Oh I agree with that 100%. I guess I just failed to mention Sheed. But he was the biggest factor

Unclebuck
01-13-2006, 06:28 PM
The hypocrisy of this statement is so thick I could cut it with a spork, that's right I said a spork.

You want to say that identical records mean nothing because you don't believe that one was as good as the other although the on court record does not show any differance.

Yet you want to dismiss any of us who claim the exact same thing for a season long record.

You don't see anything wrong with this??????

The 61 win season means nothing, zero, nadda.

It's just some mythical mark that only a few of you cling to for dear life as the zenith of what basketball should be about.

However, the reality is this. They lost to the Detroit Pistons in 6 games.

The team the very next season lost to the Detroit Pistons in 6 games.

Only in your mind is there a differance.

I'll say it now & repeat it as many times as you need me to.

The 61 win teams where nowhere near as good as any of the teams from the 94-00 season.

I doubt if the 04 team would have won one game vs. the 00 Pacers.



Very entertaining post. But there was one really big difference between 2004 and 2005 that no one can argue. In 2004 the Pacers made it to the eastern conference finals. In 2005 they made it to the eastern conference semi-finals

Maybe that doesn't mean anything to some people but it does to me.

BlueNGold
01-13-2006, 06:43 PM
Sure, they are playing well, but not compared to what they could have been. They are playing well because they are a playoff team even without Artest. If Artest was not psychotic, he would be a Pacer and they would be #2 in the east...pretty close to Detroit....definitely with over 20 wins.

As for the 61 win season, the stars were aligned that year. It was due to a combination of healthy players and an inordinate number of close games...which the Pacers won. I recall Slick raving about Reggie after Reggie had won another game that year with a shot late in the game.

If Artest was not psychotic we would have been better this year than 2 years ago when we had that stellar record....especially if the team had matured and developed some chemistry....if, if, if,....

BlueNGold
01-13-2006, 06:51 PM
I doubt if the 04 team would have won one game vs. the 00 Pacers.
The 00 Pacers would definitely have beaten the 04 team...but it is not likely the 04 team would have been swept.

brichard
01-13-2006, 07:52 PM
I doubt if the 04 team would have won one game vs. the 00 Pacers.

You mean that team that almost got bounced by the lowly Bucks in the first round? ;)

I agree that how far you go in the playoffs will determine how you are remembered, but there were some pretty similar teams we had for several years and this one seemed to get the better bounce of the ball when it mattered most.

brichard
01-13-2006, 07:54 PM
Just read we were 6-2 with Psycho. That's .750 winning percentage. We aren't playing that now.
(though I'm much happier)

That isn't how I remember it, but perhaps I am including the times where he was on the team but not playing. Or, perhaps I am on crack. :cool:

I still don't remember us playing all that well even with RA.