PDA

View Full Version : Does Carlisle want the boot?



Jon Theodore
03-29-2006, 12:37 PM
At this point the Pacers are going to be lucky to tie last years record. To me that is pretty pathetic, I mean what up Reggie Miller.

Anyhow, last year we were off worse I thought. Tins was tinsley, Jackson was out for a while, and of course no Ron the whole year which we could equate to having no Peja at ALL this year. We also didn't even have Granger.

I am just trying to figure out how this team is underachieving. I am honestly proposing the question, I am not making an assumption. Is it possible Carlisle wants the boot?

Now the logical side of me says no, what good would that do Carlisle. I have no idea what the contract agreement between teams and coaches is, so again I am honestly proposing the question. I mean some of Carlisle's moves this year have been sketchy at BEST.

Taking Sarunas out of the rotation is just retarded. I am well aware of the fact that he has not lived up to the hype, not even close. Still, we all saw Nocioni come to the NBA and stink it up his first year and look at him now.

Sarunas is more of a competitor than anyone on this team, Jackson is probably the closest in sharing Sarunas' desire to win. To me cutting the minutes of Tins, AJ, and FJ respectively to get Sarunas 10-15 minutes needs to be done. We all know less minutes for Tins is a good thing, we want him healthy in the playoffs. Why not let Tins, FJ and AJ rest their bodies for a bit and let Sarunas develop. It's not as if were competing for a championship at this point the guy is 30 years old we don't have FOREVER to develop him.

Saras is still the only guy who knows how to use David's size to our advantage, more so than David and probably our entire coaching staff. Why not just play him with Stephen Jackson and let Jack bring the ball up? I've seen him do it plenty of times and it didn't seem like he struggled much. He can't be worse than AJ.

Again, I just feel like Carlisle is kind of half assedly coaching. So I am curious does he have anything to gain from being booted. Does it look better to other teams if you quit or if you are fired? I would imagine if you quit and are looking to coach another team that looks better.

Regardless, Carlisle needs to get his **** together. We didn't not sign Dale Davis so we could have a PG sit on the bench while Tins gets schooled by Jason Williams and throws up 15 bricks in the process.

Also, can anybody explain to me why Peja doesn't get more shots. Tinsley getting more shots than Peja should NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE happen.

I don't care if Peja throws up 15 bricks he's one of the best shooters in the league.

Anyways, it is obvious that this team is underachieving and I don't want to believe it's the players.

McClintic Sphere
03-29-2006, 12:45 PM
All you had to do was watch the Miami game to realize what is wrong with this team. Posturing and gloating when they are up big, divided and making incredibly bad basketball decisions when it is crucial to do so. Tins and Jax just do things on the court that are so fundamentally bad and JO, who is supposed to be the mature one, making 2 to 1 signs to the Miami fans after we choke? I don't know if anyone can get this crew to play above their individual limitations. They still seem really immature.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 01:01 PM
All you had to do was watch the of the Miami game to realize what is wrong with this team. Posturing and gloating when they are up big, divided and making incredibly bad basketball decisions when it is crucial to do so. Tins and Jax just do things on the court that are so fundamentally bad and JO, who is supposed to be the mature one, making 2 to 1 signs to the Miami fans after we choke? I don't know if anyone can get this crew to play above their individual limitations. They still seem really immature.

Dead on right.

Many players on this squad completely lack the mental stability or maturity to be successful professionals.

For what seems like a decade we have been hearing "just wait, these guys will grow and gell and become the best team in the league."

At this point it appears to me that the "core" of this team, well whats left of it, will never have what it takes mentally to be a winner. And if they ever get it, they will be too far past their prime for it to matter.

This off-season needs to have some major moves. IMO, it starts with O'Neal and Tinsley. Hopefully we can see the departure of these two before they corrupt Harrison. And yes I know that both are near impossible to move, so I'm not expecting anything.

beast23
03-29-2006, 01:11 PM
Do you sincerely feel as though this team is underachieving? Or like me, are you frustrated by the fact that they tend to lose most of the close games?

That is the one thing that I see about this team that really could have made a difference in their record. Winning the majority of the close games.

But, going through all the injuries we have had, going through Artest-gate, acquiring new players in Peja and Saras, I can understand (although still not appreciate) the fact that we tend to lose the close ones.

We have a team that has had what, 30 or so different starting lineups. Our team is still trying to find itself, even though there are only a few games left in the season before the playoffs start. We need better chemistry, we need healthy players, and we need better on court and locker room leadership. It is no wonder that we lose close games.

As for Saras, or even Eddie Gill for that matter, getting more minutes. I think that it's a shame that he was unable to carve out a more defined role for himself this season. The way it has turned out, it certainly was not what Bird, Walsh and Carl invisioned. But, we are in the midst of securing a playoff position, and that is far more important at this point of the season than making certain that a non-rotational player gets his share of minutes.

At this point, as good a job as Austin was doing for us earlier in the season, it will be difficult for him to get many minutes when/if he returns. And this is a player that was scoring double figures and getting his share of rebounds.

You find minutes for your non-rotational players in mop-up situations. It's up to the players to perform their best in those situations to earn a possibility of getting a few minutes extra during the earlier stages of a game.

As for letting Jackson bring the ball up so that Saras can get a few more minutes, this is not a time for us to be experimenting just so we can play a non-rotational player a few extra minutes. We are in a playoff race, and that is far more important than getting Saras a few minutes to appease his feelings.

Outside of the playoffs, the most important thing the Pacers can do right now is to build and nurture a comfort level for Peja playing with a starting five that includes Jermaine O'Neal. Why? Because the most important thing we can do for this team this summer is to extend Peja's contract... or to at least get to the point that he won't even give a thought to opting out of his present contract.

As for those who say that the playoffs just aren't important this season, I just don't agree. As a long-time fan, I want us in the playoffs every year, whether we are injured, whether we are rebuilding or even whether we have a knucklehead or two that no longer want to be a part of the team.

Roy Munson
03-29-2006, 01:11 PM
All you had to do was watch the Miami game to realize what is wrong with this team. Posturing and gloating when they are up big, divided and making incredibly bad basketball decisions when it is crucial to do so. Tins and Jax just do things on the court that are so fundamentally bad and JO, who is supposed to be the mature one, making 2 to 1 signs to the Miami fans after we choke? I don't know if anyone can get this crew to play above their individual limitations. They still seem really immature.

JO has always played like a punk, and he continues to, despite his bragadocious talk about maturity and leadership. As long as JO is the Pacers "best player", they will underachieve.

SJax does not have the attitude of a winner either. I would like to see both players dealt away for more mature players.

CableKC
03-29-2006, 01:12 PM
Dead on right.

Many players on this squad completely lack the mental stability or maturity to be successful professionals.

For what seems like a decade we have been hearing "just wait, these guys will grow and gell and become the best team in the league."

At this point it appears to me that the "core" of this team, well whats left of it, will never have what it takes mentally to be a winner. And if they ever get it, they will be too far past their prime for it to matter.

This off-season needs to have some major moves. IMO, it starts with O'Neal and Tinsley. Hopefully we can see the departure of these two before they corrupt Harrison. And yes I know that both are near impossible to move, so I'm not expecting anything.
Great.....I sense another "get rid of SJax and Tinsley" debate brewing.....

Just out of curiosity....why start with JONeal? why not SJax?

Although both SJax and Tinsley can be downright ungodly when they are on fire.....they can be equally ugly on the next night. If anything....it would be Tinsley first....SJax second...and when it comes time to blow up the team....JONeal third. Players like SJax and Tinsley can easily be replaced....while players like JONeal....despite his penchant for somehow getting injured.....are not easy to acquire.

I honestly don't know where any of the blame falls. Alot of our debates come down to how the offense is run....how substitution patterns are run....how this and that is run.

If it is true that Carisle micromanages the offense, then why do we always see plays where SJax, Tinsley or even JONeal jack up shots ( even when they are cold )? Is it not logical to not run or call plays for the "cold" player but get the ball to the "hot" player?

or

Are getting what we wished for when we hoped for a more free-flowing offense....where ( as Carlisle mentioned in his show yesterday ) the players are left to their own decision to shoot or not?

I think that its a combination of both......

Arcadian
03-29-2006, 01:19 PM
This team is not underchieving.

beast23
03-29-2006, 01:20 PM
Dead on right.

Many players on this squad completely lack the mental stability or maturity to be successful professionals.

For what seems like a decade we have been hearing "just wait, these guys will grow and gell and become the best team in the league."

At this point it appears to me that the "core" of this team, well whats left of it, will never have what it takes mentally to be a winner. And if they ever get it, they will be too far past their prime for it to matter.

This off-season needs to have some major moves. IMO, it starts with O'Neal and Tinsley. Hopefully we can see the departure of these two before they corrupt Harrison. And yes I know that both are near impossible to move, so I'm not expecting anything.
I agree that we need changes. I agree that maturity is a big factor. But I think the biggest factor is leadership.

And for me, I don't care how vocal the rest of my team is. My leader has to be my point guard. He's the one that sets the tempo; he's the one that has to know how best to attack the weaknesses of the opposition; and he's the one that sets guys straight when they stray.

For that reason, I totally agree that it would be best for Tinsley to go.

I haven't made up my mind on JO yet. Despite his rants and raves, and even Reggie's annointing him as the leader, he sends way too many mixed messages to be even remotely recognized as a leader. His lips say one thing, yet his behavior on the court says something different.

But, you are 100% correct. I believe there will be some pretty big changes to our roster this summer.

McClintic Sphere
03-29-2006, 01:23 PM
Although both SJax and Tinsley can be downright ungodly when they are on fire.....they can be equally ugly on the next night. If anything....it would be Tinsley first....SJax second...and when it comes time to blow up the team....JONeal third. Players like SJax and Tinsley can easily be replaced....while players like JONeal....despite his penchant for somehow getting injured.....are not easy to acquire.

The team is just talented enough to get your hopes up that they could do something big (e.g. Sixer's game, 1st half Miami) and then you see that second half and it seems to crystallize exactly why they have no chance in hell of going anywhere. Jax, I have no problem with his effort, but his mind just seems to disappear for crucial periods of time. Tins, same thing, and his body language just does not suggest the demeanor of a leader. No way they have the mental makeup to produce in say the 4th quarter of a close playoff game against seasoned opponents of the Spurs/Pistons/Heat ilk.

Jon Theodore
03-29-2006, 01:23 PM
My main issue is still with Carlisle. Does anyone not think we'd have at least 40+ wins right now with George KArl at the helm?

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 01:35 PM
Great.....I sense another "get rid of SJax and Tinsley" debate brewing.....

Just out of curiosity....why start with JONeal? why not SJax?

Although both SJax and Tinsley can be downright ungodly when they are on fire.....they can be equally ugly on the next night. If anything....it would be Tinsley first....SJax second...and when it comes time to blow up the team....JONeal third. Players like SJax and Tinsley can easily be replaced....while players like JONeal....despite his penchant for somehow getting injured.....are not easy to acquire.

See Roy's post. But further on that, it is imparative to me that the star of the team be the example leader.

It is not required that they be the vocal leader. Reggie was never the vocal leader, but Reggie set the example.

Well unfortunately JO set the example. As long as he is the "star", or "franchise" player this team will always have maturity problems

Bball
03-29-2006, 01:36 PM
Well, first....
We need to know what the problem with JO is. Is it the system or did we hook our wagon to a player who is simply second tier by a lot to other 'star players'?

As Diamond Dave has implied, the clock is ticking. At some point we're going to realize JO has maxed his potential (whether that has already happened or is in the coming future is a question) and will be in decline. And unfortunately, his on court play lacks a lot of things you'd like to see from a max player who was supposed to be our next star and leader. Waiting for 'it' to click in is starting to get tiresome.

I still feel the lack of Artest last year exposed JO as more of a pretender than a contender... and this season... so far... still hasn't shown me that he's ready to admit that and work harder. The next time we see JO doing the little things on the court will be the first time.

The 20 Million dollar question is whether Carlisle is not the coach to get more out of him or use him differently... or if any coach could accomplish anything with him?

Uncle Buck probably regrets saying it but his comment about JO being a lazy player really hit home here.

Tinsley... I still believe Tinsley never should've gotten off the bench after his injury. He should've been made disaster/emergency PG and that is it. The AJ/Sarunas rotation was working. There might be more 'potential' with Tinsley in the mix BUT I am thru with 'potential' as it relates to the Pacers. Injuries... attitude... on court maturity... Those things all play against Tinsley and waiting on this 'potential'.

I believe, and still believe, Saras should've been given the reins to this team because they lack what is supposed to be his greater skill: Leadership. A winner's attitude. Not a whiner's attitude. Unselfish play.

If his weaknesses were too much to overcome then so be it... but where exactly were the problems during his stretch as the 2nd string PG? It seems most that have relished in his demotion or accepted it suddenly forgot how much better this team was just a few weeks ago when he was in the mix.

Overall, this team is hard to like. Lazy, sloppy play. Underachieving. Selfish. Over-rated players. Inconsistent. We're far from fighters. Beast23 mentioned close games but it's the blowouts to the league's cellar dwellers that stick with me. I don't really remember that many close games. Maybe close for a couple or 3 of quarters...

If JO's game doesn't change, and as long he is the centerpiece of this franchise... we have problems. It means we're built on a shaky foundation.

It could be the coach's fault... it could be JO's... it could be both. Someone best be figuring it out.

-Bball

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 01:42 PM
I agree that we need changes. I agree that maturity is a big factor. But I think the biggest factor is leadership.

And for me, I don't care how vocal the rest of my team is. My leader has to be my point guard. He's the one that sets the tempo; he's the one that has to know how best to attack the weaknesses of the opposition; and he's the one that sets guys straight when they stray.

For that reason, I totally agree that it would be best for Tinsley to go.

I haven't made up my mind on JO yet. Despite his rants and raves, and even Reggie's annointing him as the leader, he sends way too many mixed messages to be even remotely recognized as a leader. His lips say one thing, yet his behavior on the court says something different.

But, you are 100% correct. I believe there will be some pretty big changes to our roster this summer.

I think we agree, but with some definition differences. I agree that the point guard needs to control the offense on the floor. They need to know it front and back, and they need to know exactly where everyone should be at all times.

However I do not think they necessarily need to be a vocal or example leader. It is fine if they are, but it is not a necessity. IMO it is your star's responsibility to lead by example.

Regardless of what team, the players will always look to the star and try to emulate them because they are the most talented (which every player wishes they were).

I can't help but quote Stan Lee here...but with great power, comes great responsibilty.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 01:45 PM
Well, first....
We need to know what the problem with JO is. Is it the system or did we hook our wagon to a player who is simply second tier by a lot to other 'star players'?

As Diamond Dave has implied, the clock is ticking. At some point we're going to realize JO has maxed his potential (whether that has already happened or is in the coming future is a question) and will be in decline. And unfortunately, his on court play lacks a lot of things you'd like to see from a max player who was supposed to be our next star and leader. Waiting for 'it' to click in is starting to get tiresome.

I still feel the lack of Artest last year exposed JO has more of a pretender than a contender... and this season... so far... still hasn't shown me that he's ready to admit that and work harder. The next time we see JO doing the little things on the court will be the first time.

The 20 Million dollar question is whether Carlisle is not the coach to get more out of him or use him differently... or if any coach could accomplish anything with him.

Uncle Buck probably regrets saying it but his comment about JO being a lazy player really hit home here.

Tinsley... I still believe Tinsley never should've gotten off the bench after his injury. He should've been made disaster/emergency PG and that is it. The AJ/Sarunas rotation was working. There might be more 'potential' with Tinsley is in the mix BUT I am thru with 'potential' as it relates to the Pacers. Injuries... attittude... on court maturity... Those things all play against Tinsley and waiting on this 'potential'.

I believe, and still believe, Saras should've been given the reins to this team because they lack what is supposed to be his greater skill: Leadership. A winner's attitude. Not a whiner's attitude. Unselfish play.

If his weaknesses were too much to overcome then so be it... but where exactly were the problems during his stretch as the 2nd string PG? It seems most that have relished in his demotion or accepted it suddenly forgot how much better this team was just a few weeks ago when he was in the mix.

Overall, this team is hard to like. Lazy, sloppy play. Underachieving. Selfish. Over-rated players. Inconsistent. We're far from fighters. Beast23 mentioned close games but it's the blowouts to the league's cellar dwellers that stick with me. I don't really remember that many close games. Maybe close for a couple or 3 of quarters...

If JO's game doesn't change, and as long he is the centerpiece of this franchise... we have problems. It means we're built on a shaky foundation.

It could be the coach's fault... it could be JO's... it could be both. Someone best be figuring it out.

-Bball

If only I could have put it this way.

:worship:

Arcadian
03-29-2006, 02:06 PM
I don't see how people think this team should be better than its record. Between the Artest episode and injuries it has been hard to get consistancy. We are depending heaveir than we ever had on guys new to the league--Hulk, Danny and Saras. And we are transitioning from a team built with Ron in mind to something else. In all honesty I think that AJ has been our MVP. When AJ has been your MVP you're doing well to be were we are at.

How does pouting on the bench at a Miami game get a player a bad label yet whining to every foriegn journalist goes unnoticed. I'm going to be honest here the biggest disappointment about Saras has been his lack of leadership. I understood his athleticism and defense would be adjustments. I had no idea we would have to deal with a "leader" complaining about his role, the offense and Indy's night life.

Raskolnikov
03-29-2006, 02:06 PM
SJax does not have the attitude of a winner either.
I tend not to agree with this.

PacerMan
03-29-2006, 02:22 PM
My main issue is still with Carlisle. Does anyone not think we'd have at least 40+ wins right now with George KArl at the helm?


Did you just wake up from a coma or something? We've been without our top 2 or 3 players for most of the season.

Kegboy
03-29-2006, 02:41 PM
No. I was gonna say that Rick hasn't done anything out of character. But that's not true. He's opened the offense up significantly. There's only so much a coach can do with so much instability and mismatched pieces.

Would Karl do a better job? Probably. Problem is, there aren't many George Karl's sitting around waiting by the phone.

RWB
03-29-2006, 02:51 PM
Would Karl do a better job? Probably. Problem is, there aren't many George Karl's sitting around waiting by the phone.

As dysfunctional as this team has been? I can't see GKarl doing any better unless they increased his Prozac dose. Sounds mean, but can't forget his Cav and Sonic days.

Lithfan
03-29-2006, 02:58 PM
I agree with Jon and Bball posts. As expected yeah.

This team is underachieving from the physical point of view. I mean there is a very scary disease - muscle degeneration. And the problem is in the nervous system that doesn't give muscles a signal to move.

Does this team really lacks skills, quickness or ball handling? No

I think this team lack mostly three things: leadership, motivation and team play which are Central Nervous System of each team.

And these are exactly the things Saras can bring. I especially support Bball comment "should've been given the reins to this team".

May be if you forget the talent and look at the Pacers nervous system - well then we are overachieving.

CableKC
03-29-2006, 02:59 PM
My main issue is still with Carlisle. Does anyone not think we'd have at least 40+ wins right now with George KArl at the helm?
Honestly.....the correct question to ask is....does anyone not think we'd have at least 40+ wins right now if the "Artest incident" didn't happen?

I don't like his offense at time...or why he either decides to let SJax and Tinsley jack up shots when they are ice-cold......but I really would like to see what he can do with the team when there is no major drama on the team.

If we are in the same situation now.....with Artest still on the Pacers...or if Bird was able to jettison Artest out the nearest airlock during the 2005 offseason.......then I can see your point.....but given the abnormal adversity ( the Brawl and the Trade ) that this team has gone through in the last 2 seasons.....I am not surprised that we are where we are right now.

Carlisle essentially has done what the best with what he has been given.....basically a dysfunctional team with players that are less "team" players and more "me" players. Not that he escapes any blame.......he's the one that run's the offense......and at times....what we do makes no sense to me.

Since86
03-29-2006, 03:02 PM
This team is not underchieving.

They have a losing record against sub-.500 teams.

If that's not underachieving, then I don't know what is.

CableKC
03-29-2006, 03:05 PM
See Roy's post. But further on that, it is imparative to me that the star of the team be the example leader.

It is not required that they be the vocal leader. Reggie was never the vocal leader, but Reggie set the example.

Well unfortunately JO set the example. As long as he is the "star", or "franchise" player this team will always have maturity problems
I see your point.....but to me......if major changes had to happen....shipping Tinsley and SJax out would be on the top of my list...ahead of JONeal.

Getting rid of JONeal ( unless its for KG :rolleyes: ) is the 1st move at rebuilding from scratch......getting rid of Tinsley and SJax is the 1st move to fixing the roster.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 03:13 PM
I see your point.....but to me......if major changes had to happen....shipping Tinsley and SJax out would be on the top of my list...ahead of JONeal.

Getting rid of JONeal ( unless its for KG :rolleyes: ) is the 1st move at rebuilding from scratch......getting rid of Tinsley and SJax is the 1st move to fixing the roster.

IMO, this roster can't be "fixed." But also I'm willing to part ways with JO for a couple of good players, not just another star.

I'll agree that Jackson needs to find his way onto another team too. But to me getting rid of Jackson and keeping JO does not solve/fix the problem.

CableKC
03-29-2006, 03:15 PM
Did you just wake up from a coma or something? We've been without our top 2 or 3 players for most of the season.
To clarify....injuries....no matter how many that a team suffers.......is something that every coach needs to deal with.

"The Brawl" and "The Trade" ( and the resulting loss of several key players ) is not something that every coach deals with. This is the reason why I think that Carlisle should be given some slack when it comes to our record and where we are right now. Unfortunately...I think its the very same reason why I think that he could possibly leave.

He dealt with very adverse "abnormal" situations that other coaches don't deal with.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 03:17 PM
I agree with Jon and Bball posts. As expected yeah.

This team is underachieving from the physical point of view. I mean there is a very scary disease - muscle degeneration. And the problem is in the nervous system that doesn't give muscles a signal to move.

Does this team really lacks skills, quickness or ball handling? No

I think this team lack mostly three things: leadership, motivation and team play which are Central Nervous System of each team.

I think I am agreeing with some of this, the whole nervous system analogy is confusing, but still.

However I think your post might be leading somewhere...


And these are exactly the things Saras can bring. I especially support Bball comment "should've been given the reins to this team".

May be if you forget the talent and look at the Pacers nervous system - well then we are overachieving.

Yep there it is. :laugh:

Saras is a lot like alcohol. The cause of and solution too all of life's problems.

Arcadian
03-29-2006, 03:22 PM
They have a losing record against sub-.500 teams.

If that's not underachieving, then I don't know what is.

Couldn't you say that having a winning record against plus .500 teams is over-achieving?

Yes, losing close games is frustrating but it is a sign that a team isn't that good in the first place. A good team is consistant. We are not a consistant team. I think that has more to due with the circumstances and roster rather than the coaching.

CableKC
03-29-2006, 03:35 PM
IMO, this roster can't be "fixed." But also I'm willing to part ways with JO for a couple of good players, not just another star.

I'll agree that Jackson needs to find his way onto another team too. But to me getting rid of Jackson and keeping JO does not solve/fix the problem.
If there is the tendency for players like SJax and Tinsley to follow by example and do the same type of things...complain to refs....do stupid things..this or that.....then they should know better. All of us forget one important thing.....they are adults and professionals.

I agree with you....I don't excuse JONeal for lacking certain qualities that are required of a leader......don't deny that they should be fixed and can be impressional on the younger players......but I don't give any credit to knuckleheads that have been around for years like Tinsley and SJax if they don't have the ability to grow some balls and be players while being professional and adults.

If the choice by Bird is to make major changes in the offseason.....then some of us can agree that Tinsley and SJax can be a good start. I will chalk it up to "homerism"....but I view trading JONeal due to leadership, motivation, maturity and tendencies to complain to refs as the "Nuclear" option before we tear everything down and rebuild from scratch.

DeS
03-29-2006, 03:39 PM
On Indystar board I found a very relevant post. I will quote NPFII as probably he will not post here :(



Source... (http://www2.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143550&page=3)
As a "New Pacers Fan In Israel" (NPFII) I have a few points to make on this issue:
1. I've lived for several years in the 80's in the US. Since then I've been in Israel. I've seen hundreds (if not thousands) of both NBA & Euro-ball games in my life.
2. In the past few years European basketball has climbed another step in the level of basketball, both on the personal skills level (raw talent, athletisicm, defense, etc.), and mostly in the team play levels (switching defenses, ball movement, organized plays, transitions, etc)
3. In these same past few years the NBA has not gone forward in any of these "game" aspects, and the most improved area of the league comes from its marketing abilities. NBA athletes have become bigger, stronger, "jumpier" and quicker, but have "forgotten" to shoot, pass, screen and most importantly - to play a team game. The NBA has reverted to being a "stars" league and the concept of "winning" falls to a distant second.

Now add to this mix Sarunas Jasikevicius.

He's a team player. Always was. He never led his championship teams in scoring, and not even in assists. But there's not one fan or player in Barcelona or Maccabi who wont tell you that he was THE leader on that team.
Every team has good players. Some have good coaches. Very few have strong leaders. Those are the teams that win.
However, the NBA is a business with lots of money and ego going around. There are "franchise players" who get ridiculous amounts of money though their personality is more of role-players. Everybody is obsessed with personal stats, because those stats are the ultimate call-for-fame, and the road to more money. Highschool players are obsessed with "posterizing" dunks, and guys who make millions of dollars cant "feed their families" and have issues with dress-codes cause they cant live up to their "hood" image.

There are 5 good teams in the NBA this season: Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix & Miami. A small breakdown of character will reveal that only Miami is a good "regular" NBA team - 2 mega stars, veteran leadership, role players. The other 4 are special:
Detroit actually have offensive set plays (the "Rip Curl", the "Sheed pick&pop"). They have no one superstar, but have designated leaders on offense (Billups) and defense (B.Wallace). They are all about "the team".
San Antonio are basically a European team built around Duncan and his passing abilities. Although Duncan is the designated superstar he's very un-NBA-like in character and "allows" Manu & Parker to actually lead the team in crunch times.
Phoenix (pre-Amare's return) is as close to a Euro team that you can find. Everybody can shoot. Everybody can pass. Their uptempo game is a concept that already landed them awards and win totals that playing "regular" NBA ball would have never gotten them.
Dallas is a bit of a riddle as they can play both ways with Dirk as the megastar, or teamplay with Terry, Howard, Daniels, etc. In general - when they play team they win, when they go Dirk they lose.

Now, Indiana is a mess.
JO is the "franchise player" who cant lead. He, Jax, Tinsley, Freddie, Harrison (and Artest when he was still here) are good players and the best athletes, but are stat-driven and play a selfish kind of game. Foster, Pollard, AJ are good role players with limited skills. Peja, Granger, Croshere are good skilled team players. Saras is a good skilled team player, who is also a great leader.

Now Rick Carlisle has to fit all these characters into a team, and it's close to impossible. The "team" players dont seem to mesh with the "talents". Nobody becomes consistant, and although everybody is "good" the team is at .500 .

Rick has elected to go with talent over team, and thus Sarunas has no place to play when Tinsley is healthy, and no place to lead period. Rick hasn't "bought-in" to the team concept as a winning concept in the NBA despite the recent successes of Detroit, SA, Phx and to some extent Dallas. I've said this in a previous post, but I doubt Rick Carlisle woul play Steve Nash over AJ, because of his defensive liabilities and his uptempo turnover-prone style of play.
However Larry Bird has seen it, and he knows it. Expect big changes next year as Larry convinces Donny Walsh to "go Euro" in style. This will mean a change at the coaching position, and more importantly a change in the balance of the team. Team-oriented players will be the anchors, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the leadership keys handed over to Sarunas.

Indiana is the state of basketball, and as such it has to keep up with the game as it changes. Hopefully it will become a team that bridges the styles between the US & Europe, and not a team that crawls into its shell of arrogance and selfishness. It would make me exteremely happy!

travmil
03-29-2006, 03:42 PM
They have a winning record against above .500 teams.

If that's not overachieving, then I don't know what is.

fixed

RWB
03-29-2006, 03:55 PM
That's a nice story Des, but........

a winning concept in the NBA despite the recent successes of Detroit, SA, Phx and to some extent Dallas.

where in this statement does it say the Pacers have the same talent?

Does anyone think the PAcers starting 5 match or even come close to these teams? Last time I checked I couldn't find a Duncan, Ginobli, all 5 Pistons, Nash/Marion, or Dirk.

Jon Theodore
03-29-2006, 03:56 PM
I still think we're underachieving, clearly.

Last year we faced similar, if not worse adversity and it looks like we'll be getting a worse record this year.

Bball
03-29-2006, 03:58 PM
The other day I mentioned the fans moving the goalposts for this team. I think calling this team overachievers, at this point, might be the most baffling thing I can think of in that regard.

If you have to continually lower the bar so the team can reach it, or at least get near it, then folks... we have a problem...

-Bball

Since86
03-29-2006, 04:01 PM
fixed

So you think that this team is a bad one?

I expect this team to be the second best team in the East, third at the very worst with Detroit and Miami(?) above them.

They should beat ATL everytime, instead of maybe going 1-2 against them.

Kstat
03-29-2006, 04:05 PM
Id say the multiple losses against lottery-bound opponents says something.

However, instead of going the route that they should be doing better (and they should), I'll say this:

It means that there are some chemistry issues. Be it the players, the coach that's meshing with the players, the style of play that doesn't mesh with the coach or the players, the attitudes that dont mesh with anybody, it's just a case of a bunch of square pegs in round holes.

Either this is going to fix itself, or someone is going to have to make some major changes.

Shade
03-29-2006, 04:07 PM
Id say the multiple losses against lottery-bound opponents says something.

However, instead of going the route that they should be doing better (and they should), I'll say this: it means that there are some chemistry issues. Be it the players, the coach that's meshing with the players, the style of play that doesn't mesh with the coach or the players, the attitudes that dont mesh with anybody, it's just a case of a bunch of square pegs in round holes.

*cough 0-2 vs. Utah cough*

*cough lost to Atlanta and NY cough*

j/k ;)

Kstat
03-29-2006, 04:09 PM
*cough 0-2 vs. Utah cough*

*cough lost to Atlanta and NY cough*

j/k ;)

losing one game to atlanta is bad, but it happens.

Losing three games to atlanta is a big red flag.

CableKC
03-29-2006, 04:13 PM
losing one game to atlanta is bad, but it happens.

Losing three games to atlanta is a big red flag.
Zing!!!!! :laugh:

Arcadian
03-29-2006, 04:30 PM
The other day I mentioned the fans moving the goalposts for this team. I think calling this team overachievers, at this point, might be the most baffling thing I can think of in that regard.

If you have to continually lower the bar so the team can reach it, or at least get near it, then folks... we have a problem...

-Bball

There is no moving goal post. With Artest you could argue that this team had championship talent. Without Artest's talent the team needs to be re-tooled.

If a poster is arguing that three starters must be traded I see no way that that poster can argue at the same time that this team is anything beyond average.

Just to put this out there I have little faith in Larry's ability to put together a team.

travmil
03-29-2006, 04:32 PM
So you think that this team is a bad one?

I expect this team to be the second best team in the East, third at the very worst with Detroit and Miami(?) above them.

They should beat ATL everytime, instead of maybe going 1-2 against them.

I didn't say anything of the sort. However, what I changed your quote to is just as true as what you originally said.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 04:40 PM
There is no moving goal post. With Artest you could argue that this team had championship talent. Without Artest's talent the team needs to be re-tooled.

If a poster is arguing that three starters must be traded I see no way that that poster can argue at the same time that this team is anything beyond average.

Just to put this out there I have little faith in Larry's ability to put together a team.

How with Artest did we have championship caliber talent?

Ron Artest: 18.0 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 3.3 apg, .407 fg%, .665 ft%, 39.4 mpg

Peja Stojakovic: 17.7 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 2.0 apg, .428 fg%, .912 ft%, 36.8 mpg

Peja does just as much with less domination of the ball, smarter play, less shots, and less time.

What Ron has in defense (and Peja is not a bad defender), is more than put off by his brain (and Ron has no brain).

I don't buy this Artest stuff. With Artest we took the Pistons to 6, the exact same as without.

sweabs
03-29-2006, 04:46 PM
With Artest we took the Pistons to 6, the exact same as without.
Yeah, but that second team had the Dale Davis factor...........

:zip:

Arcadian
03-29-2006, 04:49 PM
A "behaved" Artest has more of an affect on the game than Peja. Just look at the King's improved play by switching the two players. Also while Peja may not be a bad defender he is no where near the same as Ron. Don't get me wrong I'm glad he is gone but to say that the talent level is the same is untrue.

Additionally the players and system we had fit Ron. With Peja both need to be change.

Also I don't buy for one second that this year's team is better than last. Reggie and Dale made us a better team than Danny and Peja.

Since86
03-29-2006, 05:08 PM
I didn't say anything of the sort. However, what I changed your quote to is just as true as what you originally said.


They should had a winning record against over-.500 teams, so they aren't overachieving anything.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 05:29 PM
A "behaved" Artest has more of an affect on the game than Peja. Just look at the King's improved play by switching the two players. Also while Peja may not be a bad defender he is no where near the same as Ron. Don't get me wrong I'm glad he is gone but to say that the talent level is the same is untrue.

Additionally the players and system we had fit Ron. With Peja both need to be change.

Also I don't buy for one second that this year's team is better than last. Reggie and Dale made us a better team than Danny and Peja.

I think all this post does is prove my point. Artest was a problem, but not the only one.

Why is it that the Kings and Pacers trade two players who are producing virtually the same stats, yet one is on the rise and the other still flounders?

It must be the supporting cast, IMO.

Diamond Dave
03-29-2006, 05:30 PM
Yeah, but that second team had the Dale Davis factor...........

:zip:

Well I'll admit that having Dale Davis is easily an additional two playoff wins. ;)

So you've got me there.

BillS
03-29-2006, 06:04 PM
I think the problem is that Rick shouldn't call the plays but he also shouldn't let the team have its head.

Sarunas should be playing except when he isn't playing well he should be sitting except when he is sitting it is clear he will be better than the players on the floor.

David Harrison should be in the game except when he needs to be out of the game due to injury or foul trouble or not having his head in the game which he'll only learn by being in the game without his head in the game.

Got that, Rick?

Seed
03-29-2006, 06:09 PM
losing one game to atlanta is bad, but it happens.

Losing three games to atlanta is a big red flag.

Miami lost 14 of its last 16 league games against the Pacers.

Kstat
03-29-2006, 06:19 PM
Miami lost 14 of its last 16 league games against the Pacers.

......ok?

Seed
03-29-2006, 06:22 PM
......ok?

OK.

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 06:42 PM
I think people take what JO DOES bring us for granted. Don't forget that he's still working his way back into shape too. Yes, he has his immature moments, just like pretty much every player in the league does now and then. Everybody seems to want to point out how many rebounds he gave up against Miami, but nobody wants to look at the fact that everybody else was letting their man get by them, causing JO to have to go for a blocked shot instead of rebounds...

Players with JO's ability aren't easy to come by and shouldn't be taken for granted. You don't trade 20 points, 10 boards, and 2 blocks just because he held up "2-1". If that was the case, Reggie and his choke sign should have never ended his career in Indiana.

Back on topic though...

I wouldn't be surprised if Bird and Carlisle came to a mutual agreement this offseason to end his coaching tenure here. I think that WILL happen. I don't think Bird would want to just "fire" him. I don't think Carlisle will just quit. It would hurt his reputation and also hurt the teams reputation.

I'm not against Carlisle being here next season, but we'd better make some roster changes if that's going to happen. However, I'd rather see roster changes AND a new coach... Though I'm a bit nervous about the thought of not having Carlisle... at least with him you know you're making the playoffs...



Miami lost 14 of its last 16 league games against the Pacers.


But we're above .500...

Seed
03-29-2006, 06:51 PM
If that was the case, Reggie and his choke sign should have never ended his career in Indiana.

Not to mention his blessed obsession for trash talk.




But we're above .500...

Yeah, my (not so clear) point was that we did loose to some weaker teams, but we won against some stronger ones (that's what makes us a 0.50 team ;)). I wouldn't take losses to the Hawks as a bad sign, just as the stats against the heat do not make us great. It's the way we play that counts. And I'd rate it.... well..... 0.50.

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 07:00 PM
I wouldn't take losses to the Hawks as a bad sign.

But 3 times??? I don't even know how I'm going to react if we lose to them tonight! :censored:

Seed
03-29-2006, 07:14 PM
But 3 times??? I don't even know how I'm going to react if we lose to them tonight! :censored:

Wer'e winning this one. I'm thinking positive thoughts. I can actually feel Indy Toad getting closer due to the +- magnetism.

Lord Helmet
03-29-2006, 07:16 PM
If we lose to them tonight......................

Lithfan
03-29-2006, 07:42 PM
I think I am agreeing with some of this, the whole nervous system analogy is confusing, but still.

However I think your post might be leading somewhere...



Yep there it is. :laugh:

Saras is a lot like alcohol. The cause of and solution too all of life's problems.


Yeah and I like it. Its funny how you can interpretate everything in a way you like. :laugh:

pizza guy
03-29-2006, 07:50 PM
Many interesting points of views have been brought up in this thread, and I'll try to address the big ones here.

Tinsley and SJax both need to be dealt. It's been my opinion for this entire season, and I've made it well known. They both lack the maturity to be championship components. Before you tell me that SJax was part of the Spurs' championship team, remember that that team included Duncan and Robinson, and the whole crew.

Carlisle, IMO, should not retain his position of head coach of the Indiana Pacers. He's a "get-to-the-playoffs" coach, and probably always will be. He lacks the...what's the right way to say this...he lacks the 'stuff' that champions are made of. What this team needs is (don't laugh, it's one of those "that's so crazy it just might work" things), a Bobby Knight. OK, so, the chairs can stay on the floor, but from what I see in the players, they need a fire lit under their butts. Obviously, there aren't a lot of Bobby Knights out there, but one guy intrigues me -- Stan VanGundy. Take that for what you will, it is just my opinion.

JO's leadership capabilities are certainly questionable. Sometimes, he's the most respectable guy on the floor, and other times he looks like the middleschool victim of a "yo' mama" joke. That's part of the reason I'd like to see a loud and fiery coach next year. As far as on-court leadership, the star has to provide the example, much like Tim Duncan does; never waivering, always persevering. The PG should be the court general. That may or may not translate to leader. When Detriot is playing a close game, you know that Chauncey Billups is in control, whether it be making the shot, or making the pass that wins it, it's Billups and that's a fact. Tinsley does not provide that for the Pacers; AJ does not provide that; Sarunas is still unknown, though I'm on his bandwagon and believe he could handle it.

The problem is not easily fixed. There needs to be roster changes, and a coaching change, IMO. I'd keep JO before I trade him; and Granger and Hulk to round out an insane 3, 4, 5 combo. Hopefully Peja stays, and hopefully Sarunas can get acclimated and get playing time. Those five guys should stay, and maybe Foster because he's a good role-player, but EVERYONE ELSE is completely expendable, and should be moved.

#31
03-29-2006, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by NPFII
Source... (http://www2.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143550&page=3)
As a "New Pacers Fan In Israel" (NPFII) I have a few points to make on this issue:
1. I've lived for several years in the 80's in the US. Since then I've been in Israel. I've seen hundreds (if not thousands) of both NBA & Euro-ball games in my life.
2. In the past few years European basketball has climbed another step in the level of basketball, both on the personal skills level (raw talent, athletisicm, defense, etc.), and mostly in the team play levels (switching defenses, ball movement, organized plays, transitions, etc)
3. In these same past few years the NBA has not gone forward in any of these "game" aspects, and the most improved area of the league comes from its marketing abilities. NBA athletes have become bigger, stronger, "jumpier" and quicker, but have "forgotten" to shoot, pass, screen and most importantly - to play a team game. The NBA has reverted to being a "stars" league and the concept of "winning" falls to a distant second.

Now add to this mix Sarunas Jasikevicius.

He's a team player. Always was. He never led his championship teams in scoring, and not even in assists. But there's not one fan or player in Barcelona or Maccabi who wont tell you that he was THE leader on that team.
Every team has good players. Some have good coaches. Very few have strong leaders. Those are the teams that win.
However, the NBA is a business with lots of money and ego going around. There are "franchise players" who get ridiculous amounts of money though their personality is more of role-players. Everybody is obsessed with personal stats, because those stats are the ultimate call-for-fame, and the road to more money. Highschool players are obsessed with "posterizing" dunks, and guys who make millions of dollars cant "feed their families" and have issues with dress-codes cause they cant live up to their "hood" image.

There are 5 good teams in the NBA this season: Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix & Miami. A small breakdown of character will reveal that only Miami is a good "regular" NBA team - 2 mega stars, veteran leadership, role players. The other 4 are special:
Detroit actually have offensive set plays (the "Rip Curl", the "Sheed pick&pop"). They have no one superstar, but have designated leaders on offense (Billups) and defense (B.Wallace). They are all about "the team".
San Antonio are basically a European team built around Duncan and his passing abilities. Although Duncan is the designated superstar he's very un-NBA-like in character and "allows" Manu & Parker to actually lead the team in crunch times.
Phoenix (pre-Amare's return) is as close to a Euro team that you can find. Everybody can shoot. Everybody can pass. Their uptempo game is a concept that already landed them awards and win totals that playing "regular" NBA ball would have never gotten them.
Dallas is a bit of a riddle as they can play both ways with Dirk as the megastar, or teamplay with Terry, Howard, Daniels, etc. In general - when they play team they win, when they go Dirk they lose.

Now, Indiana is a mess.
JO is the "franchise player" who cant lead. He, Jax, Tinsley, Freddie, Harrison (and Artest when he was still here) are good players and the best athletes, but are stat-driven and play a selfish kind of game. Foster, Pollard, AJ are good role players with limited skills. Peja, Granger, Croshere are good skilled team players. Saras is a good skilled team player, who is also a great leader.

Now Rick Carlisle has to fit all these characters into a team, and it's close to impossible. The "team" players dont seem to mesh with the "talents". Nobody becomes consistant, and although everybody is "good" the team is at .500 .

Rick has elected to go with talent over team, and thus Sarunas has no place to play when Tinsley is healthy, and no place to lead period. Rick hasn't "bought-in" to the team concept as a winning concept in the NBA despite the recent successes of Detroit, SA, Phx and to some extent Dallas. I've said this in a previous post, but I doubt Rick Carlisle woul play Steve Nash over AJ, because of his defensive liabilities and his uptempo turnover-prone style of play.
However Larry Bird has seen it, and he knows it. Expect big changes next year as Larry convinces Donny Walsh to "go Euro" in style. This will mean a change at the coaching position, and more importantly a change in the balance of the team. Team-oriented players will be the anchors, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the leadership keys handed over to Sarunas.

Indiana is the state of basketball, and as such it has to keep up with the game as it changes. Hopefully it will become a team that bridges the styles between the US & Europe, and not a team that crawls into its shell of arrogance and selfishness. It would make me exteremely

You know, i came in here to make reply and then i saw this post and realised... This man stole my thoghts and actualy turned them into readable english words (with correct grammar!) and then posted. Great post NPFII (wherever u are!). Im not the person who says "I agree!" but this man was corect and going after fact & his experience. Read it & Save it because here you will find most of your answers...

DeS
03-29-2006, 08:37 PM
You know, i came in here to make reply and then i saw this post and realised... This man stole my thoghts and actualy turned them into readable english words (with correct grammar!) and then posted. Great post NPFII (wherever u are!). Im not the person who says "I agree!" but this man was corect and going after fact & his experience. Read it & Save it because here you will find most of your answers...
:highfive: Actualy I felt the same way. I thought - no way I could express my feelings & thoughts better (not event considering the correct grammar :) ).

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 08:44 PM
I haven't had the time to read every single word of the posts in this thread, but I will before the day is over. One thing I do have to put out there though, I DO NOT want to trade SJax! I like how he fits in when he's not chasing his offensive game. He's a great compliment to the team when he isn't option #1.

pizza guy
03-29-2006, 09:36 PM
Sure, when SJax is playing well, what's not to like? It's the fact that he's too inconsistent and tempermental to keep. Yes, he puts it all on the court every night, but there are no moral victories to Indiana basketball fans.

I will say that I would like to see a 2, 3, 4, 5 combo of SJax, Granger, JO, and Hulk because they could beat crap outta people. That may work if Jackson doesn't fall into the trap of standing outside the arc and launching bad shots. That lineup would require Stephen's ability to drive, which is one thing about his game that is fairly consistent, and that I like. It's a good defensive lineup, and it's a good offensive lineup -- the only concern is rebounds because JO and Hulk do not always focus on that aspect, though Granger may be able to help out there as well.

Jermaniac
03-29-2006, 10:01 PM
GOD I HOPE HE GETS FIRED, PLEASE FIRE HIM LARRY. PLEASE I BEG YOU.

Unclebuck
03-29-2006, 11:12 PM
Yesterday I was looking at the league wide team stats. The best barometer to determine what type of record an NBA team should have is point differential and games won by 10 points or more.

Pacers point differential is +2. That is as good as the Cavs, Nugs, and Clippers, and yet the pacers have a .500 record. Pacers should be about 10 games over .500

Pacers have won 23 games by 10 points or more. Here is the list of the other top teams in the NBA and their number of wins by 10 pts or more.

Suns - 27
Pistons - 28
Heat - 24
Spurs - 28
Grizzlies - 24


So really only 3 teams have won more games by 10 or more.

Pacers record should be about 10 games over .500. The Pacers are better than their record.

Unclebuck
03-29-2006, 11:13 PM
GOD I HOPE HE GETS FIRED, PLEASE FIRE HIM LARRY. PLEASE I BEG YOU.


I didn't know you felt that way

Jermaniac
03-29-2006, 11:14 PM
I hate him with all my heart.

Bball
03-29-2006, 11:17 PM
Yesterday I was looking at the league wide team stats. The best barometer to determine what type of record an NBA team should have is point differential and games won by 10 points or more.

Pacers point differential is +2. That is as good as the Cavs, Nugs, and Clippers, and yet the pacers have a .500 record. Pacers should be about 10 games over .500

Pacers have won 23 games by 10 points or more. Here is the list of the other top teams in the NBA and their number of wins by 10 pts or more.

Suns - 27
Pistons - 28
Heat - 24
Spurs - 28
Grizzlies - 24


So really only 3 teams have won more games by 10 or more.

Pacers record should be about 10 games over .500. The Pacers are better than their record.


So you agree that the Pacers are underachievers? ...Or is your point that even with some lowly losses that they've done pretty good overall and overachieved? ...Or something else?

-Bball

Unclebuck
03-29-2006, 11:17 PM
I hate him with all my heart.



I just never knew that, you need to learn to express yourself more forcefully

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 11:19 PM
I'm not against Carlisle being here next season

I think somebody must have logged into my account. Surely I didn't say that...

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 11:21 PM
Pacers record should be about 10 games over .500. The Pacers are better than their record.

So, who would you lay that blame on?

Bball
03-29-2006, 11:29 PM
So, who would you lay that blame on?

Yes... UB's comments left me confused. I'm not sure what his point was. But you asked the question better...

If we should be 10 games better than we are, then why aren't we?

-Bball

Unclebuck
03-29-2006, 11:32 PM
So you agree that the Pacers are underachievers? ...Or is your point that even with some lowly losses that they've done pretty good overall and overachieved? ...Or something else?

-Bball



Pacers just haven't been able to win the close games. But there has been some much upheaval, turmoil, and change this season I think that is the reason why their record is not better than it is.

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 11:39 PM
Man UB, just when I thought you were actually going to bash Carlisle for a second...

travmil
03-29-2006, 11:55 PM
Pacers have won 23 games by 10 points or more.

That's not really a telling stat. Here's one I consider to be more telling. The Pacers have a total of 27 games played that were decided by 5 points or less. Their record in those games is 7-20. Of those 20 losses, 3 were to the Hawks, and 2 were to the Raptors. When you can't close out teams that lose 70% of their games, there is a fundamental problem in the pipes somewhere that goes far beyond just not being able to win the close ones.

clownskull
03-30-2006, 12:52 AM
That's not really a telling stat. Here's one I consider to be more telling. The Pacers have a total of 27 games played that were decided by 5 points or less. Their record in those games is 7-20. Of those 20 losses, 3 were to the Hawks, and 2 were to the Raptors. When you can't close out teams that lose 70% of their games, there is a fundamental problem in the pipes somewhere that goes far beyond just not being able to win the close ones.
yeh, that does speak pretty clearly. can't win close games AND loses to plenty of awful teams.

Sollozzo
03-30-2006, 02:27 AM
If I were Saras, I would be sick that I didn't sign with my buddy Z in Cleveland.

Diamond Dave
03-30-2006, 12:58 PM
If I were Saras, I would be sick that I didn't sign with my buddy Z in Cleveland.

No kidding.

Hell I'm sure he wished he signed with the Hawks. Maybe its the mid-semester grind talking, but the combination of the Euro's and the Pacers are beginning to make me think that Maccabi Tel-Aviv would kick our punk b!tch @sses.

Unclebuck
03-30-2006, 01:27 PM
That's not really a telling stat. Here's one I consider to be more telling. The Pacers have a total of 27 games played that were decided by 5 points or less. Their record in those games is 7-20. Of those 20 losses, 3 were to the Hawks, and 2 were to the Raptors. When you can't close out teams that lose 70% of their games, there is a fundamental problem in the pipes somewhere that goes far beyond just not being able to win the close ones.



That was the same point I was making, I just used different stats to make the same point