PDA

View Full Version : Pistons Better Than Pacers?



Steveman
06-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Do you think that this years Pistons team is better than any of those great Pacers teams of the 90's?

BTW, I was called dumb for even suggesting this in another forum.

Shade
06-14-2004, 11:32 PM
I think our '98 team was definitely better. We had a good defensive team that year too and could shoot lights out.

The '00 team was probably better as well.

And the '05 team will be better too. ;) :D

Kstat
06-14-2004, 11:34 PM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Steveman
06-14-2004, 11:44 PM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Unclebuck
06-14-2004, 11:46 PM
I have a hard time comparing teams that never played against each other, my imagination is not that good.

Kstat
06-14-2004, 11:51 PM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.

I could see a fair comparison between the ABA champ Pacers and the 2004 Pistons, but no NBA Pacer team I would honestly compare, because frankly, they haven't had any NBA champions.

Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

Suaveness
06-14-2004, 11:53 PM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.

I could see a fair comparison between the ABA champ Pacers and the 2004 Pistons, but no NBA Pacer team I would honestly compare, because frankly, they haven't had any NBA champions.

Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

The Lakers were better back then. Their role players actually made their shots, and Shaq was superb.

Kstat
06-14-2004, 11:56 PM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.

I could see a fair comparison between the ABA champ Pacers and the 2004 Pistons, but no NBA Pacer team I would honestly compare, because frankly, they haven't had any NBA champions.

Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

The Lakers were better back then. Their role players actually made their shots, and Shaq was superb.

Shaq was better then, but Kobe was better now.

two guys (Fox, Fisher) that STARTED on that 2000 team are bench players now.

The role players on the 2004 Lakers dont seem to have a problem making shots. George and medvedenko had good series vs Houston, Fisher scorched SA, and Kareem Rush DESTROYED Minnesota. But all of a sudden they play detroit, and they suddenly become terrible all by themselves....... :rolleyes:

ChicagoJ
06-14-2004, 11:58 PM
Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

Now wait just a second. That went six games, and several of the Lakers wins were close games (overtime, game six was a one possession game in the last minute.)

That's not mutilated.

Oh, and don't forget that Glen Rice was still in his prime in 2000. :mad:

Shade
06-14-2004, 11:59 PM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.

I could see a fair comparison between the ABA champ Pacers and the 2004 Pistons, but no NBA Pacer team I would honestly compare, because frankly, they haven't had any NBA champions.

Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

There are plenty of instances where a runner-up or even a conference finalist in one year would have beaten the champion of another year. I think most ppl here believe that the '98 team that lost in the ECF was better than the '00 team that lost in the Finals.

Shade
06-15-2004, 12:00 AM
Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

Now wait just a second. That went six games, and several of the Lakers wins were close games (overtime, game six was a one possession game in the last minute.)

That's not mutilated.

Oh, and don't forget that Glen Rice was still in his prime in 2000. :mad:

Not to mention that the Lakers were then what the Pistons are now when it comes to getting calls. ;)

Kstat
06-15-2004, 12:04 AM
Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

Now wait just a second. That went six games, and several of the Lakers wins were close games (overtime, game six was a one possession game in the last minute.)

That's not mutilated.

Oh, and don't forget that Glen Rice was still in his prime in 2000. :mad:

1) I never said the LAKERS mutilated Indiana, I said SHAQ AND KOBE mutilated Indiana, which they did. Indy had no awnser for either of them.

If Kobe isn't limping around in game 3, LA may have swept Indiana.

And as for Glen Rice......he stunk in the 3 rounds before the finals. He had a great finals because Indiana wasn't guarding him.

Kstat
06-15-2004, 12:05 AM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.

I could see a fair comparison between the ABA champ Pacers and the 2004 Pistons, but no NBA Pacer team I would honestly compare, because frankly, they haven't had any NBA champions.

Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

There are plenty of instances where a runner-up or even a conference finalist in one year would have beaten the champion of another year. I think most ppl here believe that the '98 team that lost in the ECF was better than the '00 team that lost in the Finals.

I suppose you could have a debate if you REALLY wanted to, I just think its rather disrespectful. Compare teams that actually have rings to show.

Steveman
06-15-2004, 12:09 AM
I have a hard time comparing teams that never played against each other, my imagination is not that good.

Well, let's look at the '98 team. I imagine they would have put Sheed on Rik ... I'd take Rik there. Dale Davis and Big Ben would've been a draw.

Derrick McKey was a lot like Ron in that he could do it at both ends of the floor but Derrick was a much better shooter, in fact, I'd say his offensive game was better all around than Ron's. Biggest gripe about Derrick is that he wasn't agressive enough on the offensive end ... he could score. I'll never forget the day he lit up the Suns for 40. Prince could not have handled Derrick like he did Ron, and I bet Derrick would have defended Prince just as well ... I like McKey here.

I'd take Jax over Billups and Reggie and Rip may have been a draw, however, Reggie still had plenty left in the tank then.

IMO, this years Pistons would have lasted no more than 5 or 6 against that '98 team. Pippen and MJ were saying that the best team didn't win the ECF that year, and they were supposedly the best tean ever assembled.

joro
06-15-2004, 12:14 AM
:idea: :idea: :idea:

Frankly, I don't think THIS YEAR'S Pistons are as good as THIS YEAR'S Pacers. They DID, however, play a better series in the ECF, obviously. But overall, say in twenty games played over a couple of months, with other competition in between, I believe the Pacers would win 12 or 13 of the 20.

I believe the two best teams in the NBA are NOT in the finals.

Who are the two best teams?

T-wolves and Pacers.

They aren't either one in the finals, because both had a sucky series.

JMHO

joro

Kstat
06-15-2004, 12:16 AM
Well, let's look at the '98 team. I imagine they would have put Sheed on Rik ... I'd take Rik there. Dale Davis and Big Ben would've been a draw.

I can't really comment on the rest of your post because I stopped reading your post after I read that.

Steveman
06-15-2004, 12:25 AM
I thought our 1984 team was better than any of the 1990's pacer teams because we scored more points and we could defend a little too..... :D

Well, I don't know about that, at any rate, I said this years Pistons team, what do you think?

Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.

Insulting? this is a Pacers forum jack ... talk about an insulting lack of respect, geez.

Not to mention the 2000 Pacers got mutilated by Shaq and Kobe, while the Pistons are beating them 3-1.

Shaq is but a shell of the Shaq we faced in 2000. Also, we got them (Shaq and Kobe) when they were still feeding, hungry for the championship. You're catching them in the midst of turmoil, on the eve of an imminant break-up.

Steveman
06-15-2004, 12:33 AM
Well, let's look at the '98 team. I imagine they would have put Sheed on Rik ... I'd take Rik there. Dale Davis and Big Ben would've been a draw.

I can't really comment on the rest of your post because I stopped reading your post after I read that.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

bulletproof
06-15-2004, 12:36 AM
Refs were on the Lakers side in 2000, refs are on the Pistons side in 2004. End of argument.

Kstat
06-15-2004, 12:38 AM
Well, let's look at the '98 team. I imagine they would have put Sheed on Rik ... I'd take Rik there. Dale Davis and Big Ben would've been a draw.

I can't really comment on the rest of your post because I stopped reading your post after I read that.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

Actually, I feel very good now :D

Truth is, I've experienced two championship celebrations in my lifetime, and I'm 48 minutes away from a third.

From where I'm sitting, the truth feels pretty good :D

btw, when you come across some truth yourself, feel free to enlighten me ;)

Bball
06-15-2004, 12:40 AM
Well frankly I think its insulting to compare a team that didn't win a title to a team that did. So unless you figure on the Pistons losing the finals, I really don't see this as a valid argument.
.

That is one of the dumbest things I've seen from a poster that usually is better than that.


-Bball

Young
06-15-2004, 12:50 AM
Its tough to say if this Pistons team is better than any other Pacers team of the 90s.

Defenseively, I doubt that the Pacers can match up with them. God the Pistons are scary good.

Offenseively they just get he job done. Plain and simple.

I think the question that should be asked is where does this Detroit team's defense rank among the great defenseive teams over the past decade or two?

Steveman
06-15-2004, 12:51 AM
Actually, I feel very good now :D

Truth is, I've experienced two championship celebrations in my lifetime, and I'm 48 minutes away from a third.

From where I'm sitting, the truth feels pretty good :D

btw, when you come across some truth yourself, feel free to enlighten me ;)

Do you have a wife, I mean, life man? The fact that your team is in the finals playing the Lakers and you're gloating on a Pacers forum tells me a lot, now there is some enlightenment :laugh:

Kstat
06-15-2004, 12:53 AM
Its tough to say if this Pistons team is better than any other Pacers team of the 90s.

Defenseively, I doubt that the Pacers can match up with them. God the Pistons are scary good.

Offenseively they just get he job done. Plain and simple.

I think the question that should be asked is where does this Detroit team's defense rank among the great defenseive teams over the past decade or two?

Personally, I don't see any other single-season defense that matches up with it.

Open to suggestions, though.

Kstat
06-15-2004, 12:54 AM
Actually, I feel very good now :D

Truth is, I've experienced two championship celebrations in my lifetime, and I'm 48 minutes away from a third.

From where I'm sitting, the truth feels pretty good :D

btw, when you come across some truth yourself, feel free to enlighten me ;)

Do you have a wife, I mean, life man? The fact that your team is in the finals playing the Lakers and you're gloating on a Pacers forum tells me a lot, now there is some enlightenment :laugh:

what does it tell you, oh wise one?

Fool
06-15-2004, 09:06 AM
I agree that the best teams don't always meet up at the finals but I also think its easy to call a team that is quite powerful in one or two areas the "best team" when thats not always the case.

The T-wolves are totally dependant on their jump shooting which is a trait that can look powerful when going well but is very hard to rely on consistently and jump-shooting teams have almost always fallen short in crunch time (Kings, Mavs, Celtics). Thats why the T-wolves lost, not because the refs but because the style of play. (I won't venture into the EC for the sake of not starting an argument).

I also don't buy the idea that you can't compare a WC team to a non-WC team. You telling me one of the Laker teams that lost to the Celtics or a Celtic team that lost to the Lakers can't be compared with a WC team?

I am totally fine with the idea that perhaps the best team in Pacer history was better then, than this Piston team is now. I would add two points however: 1) A lot of really good teams get swallowed or overshadowed by dynasties and so the opinion of how good players are like Smits, Davis, and Jackson are very different for a fan of the team who watched them fall short against a dynasty, then for a fan of another team that might only see them as a finals team one year. 2) Its very hard to honestly compare a very good offensive team to a very good defensive team.

(I also think recap brings up a very good point when comparing the two)

Doug in CO
06-15-2004, 09:46 AM
Kstat - is there a Pistons forum you could go back to. Frankly - I think the arrogance you have displayed in this post is out of character for you. Your past posts have been a real contribution - and you have not forgotten that this is a Pacers forum.

I am glad for you - you have celebrated 2 championships and will have a third. But we haven't. So please, forgive the fact that the pain is still there.

Also consider - please - that the best team does not always win series. Injuries, a single play, a particular call... all can swing an entire series.

You use the word 'disrespectful.' I consider your post what is really disrespectful here.

The 98 Pacers - who were the only team to push the Bulls to the brink - would have beaten this year's Pacers, Lakers, AND Pistons.

And the Bad Boys - they would have smoked this year's Pistons.

naptownmenace
06-15-2004, 11:08 AM
I have to admit that this topic is pretty silly. I tend to agree with Kstat a little, that you can't compare a team that won it all to a team that didn't.

I do think that the 98' Pacers team might be an exception because they barel lost to a very dominant Bulls team in 7 games. Everyone said that the winner of the championship would come from that series. Reggie, Mullin, Best, and Jax would've had a field day from behind the arch and that would've made it difficult for the Pistons to swarm Smits (who averaged 18 a game at that point) in the paint.

The 2000 team would've been beaten by this Pistons team, IMO, because their defense and rebounding was very average. The Pistons would've killed us on the offensive glass.