PDA

View Full Version : Here we go again....



Kraut N Beer
01-26-2010, 09:46 AM
Pacers are slowly creeping up again in the standings and are 5-5 in the their last 10 games with a split with Philly and a win over Detroit. Washington is on a downward spiral. With Brandon's recent good play and Danny staying healthy, I am sensing yet another near-playoff miss this year. :onozomg:

Hicks
01-26-2010, 10:00 AM
It's what I've been saying for a while. Don't count your lottery chickens now, count them in April.

Brad8888
01-26-2010, 10:05 AM
Cluck!

Cluck cluck cluck cluck Cluckcluckclukclclclcluck

CLUCK!

That is one. We will see about more at a later date.

Zelmo Beatty
01-26-2010, 10:41 AM
Yup, barring either an injury to a key player or a trade, this season
looks like a reasonable facsimilie of the last two. The Pacers will
win just enough games to both fall short of the playoffs and
wizz away an attractive draft slot.

Will Galen
01-26-2010, 10:51 AM
Pacers are slowly creeping up again in the standings and are 5-5 in the their last 10 games with a split with Philly and a win over Detroit. Washington is on a downward spiral. With Brandon's recent good play and Danny staying healthy, I am sensing yet another near-playoff miss this year.

They are creeping up, however they are tied for third for most loses with 29. They're tied with three other teams.

I was reading in the Star that the Pacers and Philly players too, still thought they had a chance to make the playoffs. I find that laughable. I really do.

Why? Because even though the Pacers have played .500 ball in the last ten games they have lost ground to the teams at the bottom of the standings.

Toronto, Charlotte, and Chicago are in the last three playoff spots in the East, and they have all played better than .500.

Here's their standings;
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="255"><tbody><tr><td class="table1column1" valign="top" width="34%">TEAM
</td> <td class="table1column2" align="center" valign="top" width="26%">RECORD

</td> <td class="table1column3" align="center" valign="top" width="40%">LAST-TEN
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="table1column1" valign="top" width="34%">Toronto
</td> <td class="table1column2" align="center" valign="top" width="26%">23-22
</td> <td class="table1column3" align="center" valign="top" width="40%">6-4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="table1column1" valign="top" width="34%">Charlotte
</td> <td class="table1column2" align="center" valign="top" width="26%">21-22
</td> <td class="table1column3" align="center" valign="top" width="40%">6-4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="table1column1" valign="top" width="34%">Chicago
</td> <td class="table1column2" align="center" valign="top" width="26%">21-22
</td> <td class="table1column3" align="center" valign="top" width="40%">7-3
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="table1column1" valign="top" width="34%">Indiana
</td> <td class="table1column2" align="center" valign="top" width="26%">16-29
</td> <td class="table1column3" align="center" valign="top" width="40%">5-5
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The last two teams in the standings, Charlotte, and Chicago are playing near .500 ball for the season so far. What's more as of right now they look like they will continue to play at that level.

This means the Pacers, to just have a chance at the playoffs, will have to play .500 ball for the whole season too, and not just for the rest of the season. That means they will have to go 25-12 the rest of the way, that's .675 ball.

If they could play .675 ball the rest of the way, you would actually have to consider them a contender. And that's why I find it laughable that they still think they can get in.

the jaddler
01-26-2010, 11:01 AM
so my question is.....would it be a good thing to have a good enough record to make the playoffs....for experince for the team......or would that make job look too good????

and hicks if they are raffling off chickens i wanna be the first to know!

BillS
01-26-2010, 11:25 AM
It's a good thing to play as hard as you can and win as many games as you can. The chips will fall the way they fall after that.

DocHolliday
01-26-2010, 11:42 AM
They can't even pull off being a bad team correctly. This is at least the third year of trying to do it. :happydanc

Justin Tyme
01-26-2010, 12:17 PM
It's a good thing to play as hard as you can and win as many games as you can. The chips will fall the way they fall after that.



OK. What's that truly prove? A 30 plus win team that doesn't make the playoffs achieves what? What's the upside? A moral victory? What's that worth?

I'm not advocating tanking, I just don't see the benefit of having a 3rd year of ABSOLUTE POINTLESSNESS. This team has little talent and it stinks. What does winning more games the 2nd half accomplish for this team when this team won't have the same players next year.... just like last year and the year b4. How did playing 500 ball the last half of last seaon help this team that is 16-29 now? I truly understand your POV, I just don't see any benefit of it with the way this season has been going.

It grieves me as a diehard Pacers fan to have to say and acknowledge this team just plain sux. They have little talent and play poorly. As a Pacers fan, I've had to suffer through the season with little to look forward to as the season has progressed. I'd personally, I understand others feel differently, would rather just see the season play out as a lost season with the opportunity to acquire a 5-7 pick. IMO, that is the best this team can hope to accomplish that can benefit themselves for the future.

KnicksRGarbage
01-26-2010, 12:30 PM
I never agree with throwing a season for a lottery pick . Plus, we are not going to get John Wall. I agree with playing hard and trying to win. I wouldn't even say that this team is untalented. Granted, we're not an amazing team with amazing depth by any means, but I certainly think there's a decent amount of talent on the team generally speaking. I think the issue is that said talent isn't properly utilized by the coaching staff. That's a whole other deal in itself, plus I don't enjoy beating a dead horse...
At the very least, if we could somehow thrust ourselves into the 8th seed this year I think it would be a good thing for the team. As I told Peck a few days ago, I think making the playoffs this year would be a good thing for the organization. With all of the negative press and "criminal perception" the public has of the team I think it would be good to have some positive news. It would be a decent change of pace from, oh Pacers suck, when was the last time they even did anything? Plus when's the next guy gonna shoot someone outside a club? damn you Tinsley... Anyhow, even though it's been 6 years there's still a very negative image associated with this team and I think a playoff berth would be a nice bit of light shed on the team.

spazzxb
01-26-2010, 01:01 PM
I never agree with throwing a season for a lottery pick . Plus, we are not going to get John Wall. I agree with playing hard and trying to win. I wouldn't even say that this team is untalented. Granted, we're not an amazing team with amazing depth by any means, but I certainly think there's a decent amount of talent on the team generally speaking. I think the issue is that said talent isn't properly utilized by the coaching staff. That's a whole other deal in itself, plus I don't enjoy beating a dead horse...
At the very least, if we could somehow thrust ourselves into the 8th seed this year I think it would be a good thing for the team. As I told Peck a few days ago, I think making the playoffs this year would be a good thing for the organization. With all of the negative press and "criminal perception" the public has of the team I think it would be good to have some positive news. It would be a decent change of pace from, oh Pacers suck, when was the last time they even did anything? Plus when's the next guy gonna shoot someone outside a club? damn you Tinsley... Anyhow, even though it's been 6 years there's still a very negative image associated with this team and I think a playoff berth would be a nice bit of light shed on the team.

Blame Tinsley if you want, but Jackson was the one firing his gun. Tinsley was the one attacked in a driveby by some Indianapolis locals. Tinsley was also selfish, lazy and was always sick/injured/sleepy. There are plenty of reasons to dislike them both but Jackson was the trigger man. Also keep in mind that our franchise fell into the cellar because the fans thought it was more important to have well behaved team than win. Jackson is still better than any player not named granger on this team but the fans wouldn't let him stay.

Mr_Smith
01-26-2010, 01:36 PM
Blame Tinsley if you want, but Jackson was the one firing his gun. Tinsley was the one attacked in a driveby by some Indianapolis locals. Tinsley was also selfish, lazy and was always sick/injured/sleepy. There are plenty of reasons to dislike them both but Jackson was the trigger man. Also keep in mind that our franchise fell into the cellar because the fans thought it was more important to have well behaved team than win. Jackson is still better than any player not named granger on this team but the fans wouldn't let him stay.


Right on with that one:happydanc. We wanted altar boys and we got them. As a result our record is 16-29 and won't make the playoffs for the 4th straight season.

P.S.
And also a draft pick that is just outside the top 10

KnicksRGarbage
01-26-2010, 01:53 PM
Try not to focus on the Tinsley part my friend. It was purely an unimportant, not adding to my point addition to that thought.

PS. I don't think we want altar boys. I think I speak for a very large portion of fans when I say I also don't want my "star" players shooting people, or at people, in the wee hours of the morning.

jhondog28
01-26-2010, 02:00 PM
Wow I didnt know that SJack played the 2 or could run the point? Are you all serious ly blaming that trade as the reason fo rth entire teams collapse? There is a lot more to this team being bad than that trade. The contracts hurt the team more than anything. It is amazing how many SJack fans are out there. Its not like he was the saving grace for Golden State when he was there.

spazzxb
01-26-2010, 02:28 PM
Wow I didnt know that SJack played the 2 or could run the point? Are you all serious ly blaming that trade as the reason fo rth entire teams collapse? There is a lot more to this team being bad than that trade. The contracts hurt the team more than anything. It is amazing how many SJack fans are out there. Its not like he was the saving grace for Golden State when he was there.

I am not actually that big of a Steven Jackson fan. He was, however the best player on our team when the fans ran him out of town. Jo couldn't stay healthy, Ron Artest was crazy and Jackson was emotional, but they were all legitimate talents. All of these players were traded away with very little in return. We have Hibbert, 10 million off the books and a bad TJ experiment for JO. We have Dunleavy for Jackson. Ron Artest basicly turned into Troy Murphy (via Peja and Harrington). We are in a recovery procees from the rapid exodus of talent that was demanded by the fanbase. We could have dealt with Artest being crazy, because he still plays hard. If the fans would have stopped booing Jackson could have expired some time ago at the very least. BTW Jackson was brought here to replace reggie at the 2. Jackson and Danny would actually make a very good set of wings on a very good team. This is all past , but there are reasons we had a deep hole to dig out of.

LoneGranger33
01-26-2010, 02:41 PM
Speaking of: http://espn.go.com/nba/lottery2010/mockdraft

Who is Willie Warren?

Putnam
01-26-2010, 02:57 PM
:hermedwards:



.

jhondog28
01-26-2010, 03:13 PM
I am not actually that big of a Steven Jackson fan. He was, however the best player on our team when the fans ran him out of town. Jo couldn't stay healthy, Ron Artest was crazy and Jackson was emotional, but they were all legitimate talents. All of these players were traded away with very little in return. We have Hibbert, 10 million off the books and a bad TJ experiment for JO. We have Dunleavy for Jackson. Ron Artest basicly turned into Troy Murphy (via Peja and Harrington). We are in a recovery procees from the rapid exodus of talent that was demanded by the fanbase. We could have dealt with Artest being crazy, because he still plays hard. If the fans would have stopped booing Jackson could have expired some time ago at the very least. BTW Jackson was brought here to replace reggie at the 2. Jackson and Danny would actually make a very good set of wings on a very good team. This is all past , but there are reasons we had a deep hole to dig out of.


I see where a lot of the fans are heading on the Murphy Dunleavy thing. I get it the team was good before that trade and now they are below average. My point is that it is easy to pile onto Dun and Murph because the NBA sometimes glorifies the athletic guys and not the skill guys and those two are a coupel of the least high flying individuals in the NBA. It makes them easy targets. I like Dun a lot and it gets frustrating when I feel he gets made out to be a scapegoat

IndySDExport
01-26-2010, 03:15 PM
Speaking of: http://espn.go.com/nba/lottery2010/mockdraft

Who is Willie Warren?

Speaking of the mock lottery on ESPN:

The Pacers are only 1/2 of a game ahead of New Jersey, yet their lotto chances are a full 6 % points different. 8.8% vs 2.8%.

Amazing what 1/2 a game will get you.

BillS
01-26-2010, 03:17 PM
OK. What's that truly prove? A 30 plus win team that doesn't make the playoffs achieves what? What's the upside? A moral victory? What's that worth?

I'm not advocating tanking, I just don't see the benefit of having a 3rd year of ABSOLUTE POINTLESSNESS. This team has little talent and it stinks. What does winning more games the 2nd half accomplish for this team when this team won't have the same players next year.... just like last year and the year b4. How did playing 500 ball the last half of last seaon help this team that is 16-29 now? I truly understand your POV, I just don't see any benefit of it with the way this season has been going.

It grieves me as a diehard Pacers fan to have to say and acknowledge this team just plain sux. They have little talent and play poorly. As a Pacers fan, I've had to suffer through the season with little to look forward to as the season has progressed. I'd personally, I understand others feel differently, would rather just see the season play out as a lost season with the opportunity to acquire a 5-7 pick. IMO, that is the best this team can hope to accomplish that can benefit themselves for the future.

If you aren't advocating tanking then how do you lose? If you aren't advocating tanking then what DO you suggest that resembles playing hard and trying to win but isn't it?

To me, teams that play to lose in order to "win" the lottery often only succeed in creating a culture of losing.

There seems to be a core of people who aren't just resigned to losing, they actively want to see us lose as many games as possible. I'd ask if any of those people are actually paying money to go to the games, and if the people who ARE paying money to go to the games would continue if it became clear the team was just mailing it in every night.

If they are bad enough to lose no matter how hard they play, the lottery fans get their wish. If they aren't bad enough for that, then they will end up where they end up. It seems that the problem is that they don't suck bad enough to be New Jersey.

I also offer that, given how horrible the East is, the team that just misses the playoffs is probably not going to be a 13th pick.

spazzxb
01-26-2010, 03:24 PM
I see where a lot of the fans are heading on the Murphy Dunleavy thing. I get it the team was good before that trade and now they are below average. My point is that it is easy to pile onto Dun and Murph because the NBA sometimes glorifies the athletic guys and not the skill guys and those two are a coupel of the least high flying individuals in the NBA. It makes them easy targets. I like Dun a lot and it gets frustrating when I feel he gets made out to be a scapegoat

I actually like Dunleavy myself, but he simply gets paid to much money for what he brings to the team. My main point was that without Murphy and Dunleavy we wouldn't be waiting for 2011 for cap flexibility. We downgraded our talent and handcuffed ourselves financially to clean house. The fans got what they wanted and need to be patient with the recovery.

ksuttonjr76
01-26-2010, 03:30 PM
The team has the talent, and under a GOOD coach this should be playing .500 ball. Personally, I want Indiana to miss the playoffs, so Bird will have an excuse to fire JOB before next season. If it wasn't for the coach, I would be rooting 100% for Indiana to make the playoff even it meant a first round sweep. All the great coaches learned from the experience, and made the necessary coaching adjustments to fit their players. If JOB made the playoffs and loss, JOB would told Bird "The system works, we just got the wrong players. Get me different players."

JOB spends too much time trying to make a system win, instead of finding a system that wins.

spazzxb
01-26-2010, 03:31 PM
I see where a lot of the fans are heading on the Murphy Dunleavy thing. I get it the team was good before that trade and now they are below average. My point is that it is easy to pile onto Dun and Murph because the NBA sometimes glorifies the athletic guys and not the skill guys and those two are a coupel of the least high flying individuals in the NBA. It makes them easy targets. I like Dun a lot and it gets frustrating when I feel he gets made out to be a scapegoat

I actually like Dunleavy myself, but he simply gets paid to much money for what he brings to the team. My main point was that without Murphy and Dunleavy we wouldn't be waiting for 2011 for cap flexibility. We downgraded our talent and handcuffed ourselves financially to clean house. The fans got what they wanted and need to be patient with the recovery.

d_c
01-26-2010, 03:34 PM
If you aren't advocating tanking then how do you lose? If you aren't advocating tanking then what DO you suggest that resembles playing hard and trying to win but isn't it?

To me, teams that play to lose in order to "win" the lottery often only succeed in creating a culture of losing.

There seems to be a core of people who aren't just resigned to losing, they actively want to see us lose as many games as possible. I'd ask if any of those people are actually paying money to go to the games, and if the people who ARE paying money to go to the games would continue if it became clear the team was just mailing it in every night.

If they are bad enough to lose no matter how hard they play, the lottery fans get their wish. If they aren't bad enough for that, then they will end up where they end up. It seems that the problem is that they don't suck bad enough to be New Jersey.

I also offer that, given how horrible the East is, the team that just misses the playoffs is probably not going to be a 13th pick.

Plenty of teams tank and it never involves intentionally losing games. Stern (and probably the US government) would be on your case if you did that.

Tanking mostly has to do with sitting (or playing less) certain guys and making certain roster decisions (which often times occur before the season starts).

For example: When you're out of the playoff race, sitting your best players when they are a little bit hurt, but would probably be playing if it was a playoff game or a game that was crucial to making the playoffs. Teams do that every year. Technically, that's tanking, since you aren't doing everything at your disposal to win games.

FWIW, winning the lottery has done a lot of things for teams like the Spurs (twice), Magic (twice), and Cavs. Those teams wouldn't be as successful if not for their tanking years.

Tanking even turned out well for teams that ended up not winning. It worked well for the Blazers (in 2006) and Kings. The Kings had the worst record in the league but ended up with the worst draft position possible after the lottery. Still, they're going to wind up with the Rookie of the Year and guy who looks like a real building block. Same thing with the Celtics. Even though they tanked and lost out, the pick they got was high enough to entice the then Sonics into trading them Ray Allen.

Whatever the case is, it's shown that in general, the NBA is a league where winning 30 something games doesn't reward you. You either have to be really good or really bad. I'm not a fan of that type of balance myself, but it is what it is.

count55
01-26-2010, 03:51 PM
Whenever I hear someone rationalizing how "tanking" is different from "intentionally losing games," I'm reminded of this (likely apocryphal) story:


Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?

Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…

Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?

Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!

Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Putnam
01-26-2010, 03:57 PM
^^^^

Was it Churchill for five pounds? I though it was Shaw, and a shilling.

Point well made, regardless.

count55
01-26-2010, 04:05 PM
^^^^

Was it Churchill for five pounds? I though it was Shaw, and a shilling.

Point well made, regardless.

I googled it, and basically it's a story that has several different variations (and some believe that it was a story originally told by Churchill himself), but I couldn't tell you which one (if any) is the real one.

Since86
01-26-2010, 04:06 PM
I don't think it's a good comparison at all. Intentionally losing in order to get a better draft pick is 180degrees different than putting up vets and letting the younger guys get the majority of the minutes.

I would be pissed if JOb or anyone else put McBob in and told him to play to lose. What I want to see is them put McBob and tell him to play. No, lineups featuring him aren't going to win games. But it lets you either develop players for winning in the future, or assess their attributes and if they should be apart of the future.

They are totally different concepts.

No one is advocating intentionally losing, and no one is advocating the players don't play as hard. Don't insult the rest of us trying to say we want to see the team lose. They're going to lose, to the extent is the question. If the 5 best players played all 48mins this roster isn't good enough to make a playoff run. I don't want them to lose, but at this point it's enevitable.

OrganizedConfusion
01-26-2010, 04:14 PM
If they could play .675 ball the rest of the way, you would actually have to consider them a contender. And that's why I find it laughable that they still think they can get in.

Yup, the schedule is going to get tougher too. Has anyone looked at the stretch from mid-February to the end of March? It's not very forgiving. Splitting a couple games with an equally inept team (the Sixers) doesn't make you a playoff contender. The Pistons are in the same category as well.

d_c
01-26-2010, 04:24 PM
A good example of tanking would be the Memphis Grizzlies a few years ago. A 35 year old Eddie Jones actually helped them win a couple games with a few baskets in the clutch.

Know what they did with Eddie Jones? They waived him in the middle of the season.

Naptown_Seth
01-26-2010, 04:44 PM
Speaking of: http://espn.go.com/nba/lottery2010/mockdraft

Who is Willie Warren?
HELL NO!!!!!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO


Of course we can relax, Ford stinks on his draft analysis, especially this time of year.

You can skim/search the prospect thread for comments on Warren, but the bottom line is this: athletic, not an impact player, a bit small for SG considering his shooting ability (he ain't Curry), an OK have him playing a lot of PG now instead.

If he stays another year, learns the point much better and develops some vision, then I can see him being an okay NBA player. No way the Pacers want or need him.



PS - it's too soon to be 100%, but early on the available later SG I really like is LaceDarius Dunn at Baylor. He's a take over and win this thing guy with a solid outside shot. Size might be an issue, but it's close.

BTW, he's ranked low because Baylor is just now getting on the real radar. Wait till the tourney when they are a 2-3 seed. If he's still the man over there instead of Udoh then his ranking will be closer to top 15.

BillS
01-26-2010, 04:57 PM
I would be pissed if JOb or anyone else put McBob in and told him to play to lose. What I want to see is them put McBob and tell him to play. No, lineups featuring him aren't going to win games. But it lets you either develop players for winning in the future, or assess their attributes and if they should be apart of the future.

Who do you sit that wants to play? Sure, let injuries rest, but the kind of players who want to be on the floor are not going to be happy with being benched when the team is losing. The kinds of fans who want to see a win when they attend a game aren't going to be happy with better players sitting on the bench. The locker room isn't going to be happy with better players sitting on the bench. Heck, people are crying now because they think the players JOB isn't playing have a better chance to win - doesn't sound like people supporting a team that loses to me.

If the argument is that the players now getting time aren't better, well, then they will lose anyway.

With McRoberts there is a legitimate (there's that word again...) argument whether you really get more from Troy for huge minutes, meaning you could carve out time for Josh and be a better team. Fine, but that is separate from "play McRoberts for more minutes and don't care if we lose because of it".

When this discussion really begins to get to me is when people start whining about getting a win, or stringing a couple of them together.

A team atmosphere starts with caring about winning, not with whether player X gets some minutes in even though it may mean a loss.

I sometimes think the majority of folks yelling for the maximum number of losses are the ones not spending any money on the team. There are some exceptions, but they don't constitute even a loud minority of the people attending games.

Justin Tyme
01-26-2010, 04:57 PM
If you aren't advocating tanking then how do you lose? If you aren't advocating tanking then what DO you suggest that resembles playing hard and trying to win but isn't it?

To me, teams that play to lose in order to "win" the lottery often only succeed in creating a culture of losing.

There seems to be a core of people who aren't just resigned to losing, they actively want to see us lose as many games as possible. I'd ask if any of those people are actually paying money to go to the games, and if the people who ARE paying money to go to the games would continue if it became clear the team was just mailing it in every night.

If they are bad enough to lose no matter how hard they play, the lottery fans get their wish. If they aren't bad enough for that, then they will end up where they end up. It seems that the problem is that they don't suck bad enough to be New Jersey.

I also offer that, given how horrible the East is, the team that just misses the playoffs is probably not going to be a 13th pick.


Why should I take the time and courtsey to answer your questions, when you can't take the time or courtsey to answer mine? Is your time more valuable than mine?

BigRik
01-26-2010, 07:09 PM
I want the team to play hard and to try and win as many games as possible. That said, I also think it is more important that we evaluate / develope the younger players who may have a future here, rather than feed all the minutes to veterns that we already know, and aren't likely to keep.

Lance George
01-26-2010, 08:02 PM
There's no question the best thing for our long-term future is a top-five pick, but I'm happy for our more short-sighted, instant gratification fans. Our 5-5 "hot" streak is probably gonna get us another 35 win season.

Time to add another banner to the rafters!

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9753/11816937.png

We got the fourpeat!

<embed allowscriptaccess="never" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.myvideo.de/movie/262201" flashvars="" height="415" wmode="transparent" width="480"></embed> <div style="font-size:0.9em;"> <a href="/watch/1476652-kool-and-the-gang-celebration">Kool And The Gang - Celebration</a> - Watch more <a href="http://vodpod.com">Videos</a> at Vodpod.</div>

:dance::happydanc:buddies:

BillS
01-27-2010, 09:40 AM
I just won't ever understand. Playing with a winning attitude is "short-sighted instant gratification"? Benching veteran players who want to be on the floor rather than partying on the bench sitting out a paycheck is somehow a good locker room strategy? There are thousands of fans willing to help get the Pacers through this season financially as long as they are losing big in order to go for that #1 draft pick?

Are ANY of these things true? Has ANY team won a championship within 5 years of a #1 pick that DIDN'T also have other factors (like a second #1 pick)?

I think I get it - how many of the "tank and be damned" folks actually live in the Indianapolis area and care if there's a team here in 3 years? How many of those have gone to games and how many have decided they aren't going until the team starts to win?

Yes, I'm calling you out. I'm at every game, I challenge you to do the same and support the team when they are doing exactly what you want, losing big.

bellisimo
01-27-2010, 10:08 AM
Are ANY of these things true? Has ANY team won a championship within 5 years of a #1 pick that DIDN'T also have other factors (like a second #1 pick)?


Spurs with Duncan...

Since86
01-27-2010, 10:13 AM
Who do you sit that wants to play? Sure, let injuries rest, but the kind of players who want to be on the floor are not going to be happy with being benched when the team is losing. The kinds of fans who want to see a win when they attend a game aren't going to be happy with better players sitting on the bench. The locker room isn't going to be happy with better players sitting on the bench. Heck, people are crying now because they think the players JOB isn't playing have a better chance to win - doesn't sound like people supporting a team that loses to me.

If the argument is that the players now getting time aren't better, well, then they will lose anyway.

With McRoberts there is a legitimate (there's that word again...) argument whether you really get more from Troy for huge minutes, meaning you could carve out time for Josh and be a better team. Fine, but that is separate from "play McRoberts for more minutes and don't care if we lose because of it".

When this discussion really begins to get to me is when people start whining about getting a win, or stringing a couple of them together.

A team atmosphere starts with caring about winning, not with whether player X gets some minutes in even though it may mean a loss.

I sometimes think the majority of folks yelling for the maximum number of losses are the ones not spending any money on the team. There are some exceptions, but they don't constitute even a loud minority of the people attending games.

Did you have me on ignore and just take me off? I have answered your first question probably no less than 15times this season, and I'm not exaggerating.

Your scenario with McRoberts is exactly what I want. There's no reason Murphy should be playing 28mins a game, which is what his average was about 2wks ago, last time I looked.

And for the record, I don't think the Pacers are currently a better team with McRoberts on the floor and Murphy on the bench. Personally, I think Roy needs to learn how to play with a horrible defense PF. Yes, the reason Roy gets put in fouling situations is because Murphy can't guard anyone, but that the same time, it's Roy's fault for fouling. He needs to learn how to defend the rim. He's never going to be surrounded by 5 guys that can keep their men out of the lane. It's folly to think so. Murphy puts Roy in bad situations and Roy needs to learn how to handle them for the future. But get back to this original point, Troy Murphy (even with his shortcomings of bad defense and that he steals rebounds) is a much better basketball player than Josh McRoberts.

BillS
01-27-2010, 10:49 AM
Did you have me on ignore and just take me off? I have answered your first question probably no less than 15times this season, and I'm not exaggerating.

Your scenario with McRoberts is exactly what I want. There's no reason Murphy should be playing 28mins a game, which is what his average was about 2wks ago, last time I looked.

Then let's have this argument in terms of "Josh on the floor doesn't hurt the team and improves the future" rather than the context of "let's tank and play the young guys".

They are separate discussions. I actually agree that Troy gets too much time. It's the mingling of this with "tank! tank! tank!" that makes everyone seem to be at each others' throats.

DocHolliday
01-27-2010, 10:52 AM
I just won't ever understand. Playing with a winning attitude is "short-sighted instant gratification"? Benching veteran players who want to be on the floor rather than partying on the bench sitting out a paycheck is somehow a good locker room strategy? There are thousands of fans willing to help get the Pacers through this season financially as long as they are losing big in order to go for that #1 draft pick?

Are ANY of these things true? Has ANY team won a championship within 5 years of a #1 pick that DIDN'T also have other factors (like a second #1 pick)?

I think I get it - how many of the "tank and be damned" folks actually live in the Indianapolis area and care if there's a team here in 3 years? How many of those have gone to games and how many have decided they aren't going until the team starts to win?

Yes, I'm calling you out. I'm at every game, I challenge you to do the same and support the team when they are doing exactly what you want, losing big.

Good for you. I went to one game last year when they were selling the floor seats for $5 and I felt cheated at that price--and that's with Bird signing my ticket. I refuse to support this coach with his ridiculous lineups and his undying love for Murphy, not to mention it took him almost half the season to realize the truth about TJ Ford, when a bunch of message board posters saw the same exact thing months in advance.

When this team gets a clear idea of how they are building this team--and when that plan doesn't include $9 million role players masquerading as starters--that's when I believe a lot of the people you describe will be back.

BillS
01-27-2010, 10:52 AM
Spurs with Duncan...

I keep thinking Robinson was younger when Duncan was drafted. However, if they hadn't already had a superstar in Robinson I don't think Duncan would have single-handedly led them to the championship.

d_c
01-27-2010, 11:05 AM
I just won't ever understand. Playing with a winning attitude is "short-sighted instant gratification"?

In the case of doing this while winning 30 something games year after year, I suppose it's admirable, morally correct and a good values for young schoolchildren to learn from.

It's also banging your head against the wall. But still admirable, sure.

Since86
01-27-2010, 11:26 AM
Then let's have this argument in terms of "Josh on the floor doesn't hurt the team and improves the future" rather than the context of "let's tank and play the young guys".

They are separate discussions. I actually agree that Troy gets too much time. It's the mingling of this with "tank! tank! tank!" that makes everyone seem to be at each others' throats.

There's always going to be people on the fringe. I would say most are more towards my position, than losing on purpose for the hopes that we land Wall. Personally, I'm taking the approach of just ignoring them.

BillS
01-27-2010, 12:09 PM
In the case of doing this while winning 30 something games year after year, I suppose it's admirable, morally correct and a good values for young schoolchildren to learn from.

It's also banging your head against the wall. But still admirable, sure.

So tell me, would you go buy a ticket to watch a team losing with better players on the bench?

Mourning
01-27-2010, 12:22 PM
I don't think it's a good comparison at all. Intentionally losing in order to get a better draft pick is 180degrees different than putting up vets and letting the younger guys get the majority of the minutes.

I would be pissed if JOb or anyone else put McBob in and told him to play to lose. What I want to see is them put McBob and tell him to play. No, lineups featuring him aren't going to win games. But it lets you either develop players for winning in the future, or assess their attributes and if they should be apart of the future.

They are totally different concepts.

No one is advocating intentionally losing, and no one is advocating the players don't play as hard. Don't insult the rest of us trying to say we want to see the team lose. They're going to lose, to the extent is the question. If the 5 best players played all 48mins this roster isn't good enough to make a playoff run. I don't want them to lose, but at this point it's enevitable.


Very well put! 100% agree.

d_c
01-27-2010, 12:34 PM
So tell me, would you go buy a ticket to watch a team losing with better players on the bench?

Me personally? I wouldn't buy a ticket to see a bad team that I don't think has a chance to be relevant, regardless of who on the roster they choose to put on the floor.

As for how teams approach this, that's sort of the challenge. Good example would be Kiki Vandeweghe with the Nuggets around 2001-2003. He willingly and deliberately gutted a Raef Lafrentz/Nick Van Exel/Antonio McDyess team that won 40 games the previous year. He deliberately torpedoed that team to build a new one.

They had to skillfully somehow keep fans interested in the franchise (or at least remind them they still existed) while totally overhauling the team.

Since86
01-27-2010, 01:14 PM
So tell me, would you go buy a ticket to watch a team losing with better players on the bench?

There aren't people jumping at the opportunity to buy tickets now, so it's a moot point.

KnicksRGarbage
01-27-2010, 01:24 PM
I think I get it - how many of the "tank and be damned" folks actually live in the Indianapolis area and care if there's a team here in 3 years? How many of those have gone to games and how many have decided they aren't going until the team starts to win?

I think you may be onto something here. This would make sense, IMO.

LoneGranger33
01-27-2010, 02:08 PM
I've never been to Indiana. I've never been off the East Coast. I've lived in New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Maryland but have always been an INDIANA Pacers fan. To suggest that a good amount of us out-of-staters want the team to tank because we have no ties to the state and thus don't care if the team moves is ridiculous. Apologies if I come across as angry, but it did rub me the wrong way (probably because our fanhood is much more easily - and often -questioned than a Hoosier natives'). And maybe I'm twisting your argument around a bit. Either way, I am one example to the contrary, and I'd like to think there are many more of us.

BillS
01-27-2010, 03:17 PM
There aren't people jumping at the opportunity to buy tickets now, so it's a moot point.

So selling 11K per game and selling 5K per game is the same thing? I don't think so.

BillS
01-27-2010, 03:23 PM
I've never been to Indiana. I've never been off the East Coast. I've lived in New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Maryland but have always been an INDIANA Pacers fan. To suggest that a good amount of us out-of-staters want the team to tank because we have no ties to the state and thus don't care if the team moves is ridiculous. Apologies if I come across as angry, but it did rub me the wrong way (probably because our fanhood is much more easily - and often -questioned than a Hoosier natives'). And maybe I'm twisting your argument around a bit. Either way, I am one example to the contrary, and I'd like to think there are many more of us.

I'm not accusing anyone personally, just asking the question. Thanks for stepping forward, that's one answer heard.

This may be an extreme viewpoint, bet there was a thread at one point where a number of the non-local fans would stick with the team if it moved. It isn't surprising, there isn't anything wrong with that, it just points to the difference between being remote and being personal.

There's also the fact that it is pretty easy for non-local fans to avoid the ultimate question of putting their money where their mouth is. No one expects fans to come hundreds of miles to see the team game after game. Therefore, the question of directly supporting with $$ a team that is losing its way into the high lottery doesn't particularly apply.

Essentially, if the Pacers pulled a Seattle/OKC, where the team rebuilds to begin being competitive at a high level just as it moves away, I think there is a higher proportion of non-local fans who would accept this as a good thing than there would be of local fans.

vnzla81
01-27-2010, 03:46 PM
the only thing that worries me is that if for some miracle the pacers win today and friday, Larry would think that he is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and decides not to trade Murphy or Foster......:(

sportfireman
01-27-2010, 03:48 PM
I've never been to Indiana. I've never been off the East Coast. I've lived in New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Maryland but have always been an INDIANA Pacers fan. To suggest that a good amount of us out-of-staters want the team to tank because we have no ties to the state and thus don't care if the team moves is ridiculous. Apologies if I come across as angry, but it did rub me the wrong way (probably because our fanhood is much more easily - and often -questioned than a Hoosier natives'). And maybe I'm twisting your argument around a bit. Either way, I am one example to the contrary, and I'd like to think there are many more of us.


I couldn't have said it better...........so what he said:mad:

BillS
01-27-2010, 03:52 PM
the only thing that worries me is that if for some miracle the pacers win today and friday, Larry would think that he is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and decides not to trade Murphy or Foster......:(

Wait - you mean if were were to actually beat both LA and Cleveland you WOULDN'T think something is actually starting to work?

Talk about sticking to the perceived solution no matter what further evidence is provided...

In all seriousness, it might affect a Murphy trade but if Foster still isn't playing how would it affect a Foster trade?

vnzla81
01-27-2010, 03:58 PM
[QUOTE=BillS;951420]Wait - you mean if were were to actually beat both LA and Cleveland you WOULDN'T think something is actually starting to work?

Talk about sticking to the perceived solution no matter what further evidence is provided...

In all seriousness, it might affect a Murphy trade but if Foster still isn't playing how would it affect a Foster trade?[QUOTE]


Because like I said he would think that he is ready to compete for playoffs and even a Championship and needs an "inside presence veteran" to compete against Howard, KG, Lebron etc,etc,etc.

chrisjacobs7
01-27-2010, 04:00 PM
I just won't ever understand. Playing with a winning attitude is "short-sighted instant gratification"? Benching veteran players who want to be on the floor rather than partying on the bench sitting out a paycheck is somehow a good locker room strategy? There are thousands of fans willing to help get the Pacers through this season financially as long as they are losing big in order to go for that #1 draft pick?

Are ANY of these things true? Has ANY team won a championship within 5 years of a #1 pick that DIDN'T also have other factors (like a second #1 pick)?

I think I get it - how many of the "tank and be damned" folks actually live in the Indianapolis area and care if there's a team here in 3 years? How many of those have gone to games and how many have decided they aren't going until the team starts to win?

Yes, I'm calling you out. I'm at every game, I challenge you to do the same and support the team when they are doing exactly what you want, losing big.

Have you looked around while at Conseco? There hasn't exactly been a lot of fans there recently... finally getting players with the right attitude was a good first step, but the fans are ready to see the team win again. Fans will not come back as long as the team stays mediocre. Opinions on how to best improve the team out of this mediocre rut is debatable, but I for one am a supporter of the 'tanking'. Yes I am a STH, and yes I care if the team stays here. But based on the current attendance level at Conseco doing what we've been doing isn't going far to keep the team here.

Gamble1
01-27-2010, 04:12 PM
[quote=BillS;951420]Wait - you mean if were were to actually beat both LA and Cleveland you WOULDN'T think something is actually starting to work?

Talk about sticking to the perceived solution no matter what further evidence is provided...

In all seriousness, it might affect a Murphy trade but if Foster still isn't playing how would it affect a Foster trade?[quote]


Because like I said he would think that he is ready to compete for playoffs and even a Championship and needs an "inside presence veteran" to compete against Howard, KG, Lebron etc,etc,etc.

You honestly believe Bird would think that? Come on man, stop with the whole Birds an idiot routine. The guy is smarter than that and honestly I won't blame him if a trade doesn't go down for Murphy or Foster.

BillS
01-27-2010, 04:14 PM
Have you looked around while at Conseco? There hasn't exactly been a lot of fans there recently... finally getting players with the right attitude was a good first step, but the fans are ready to see the team win again. Fans will not come back as long as the team stays mediocre. Opinions on how to best improve the team out of this mediocre rut is debatable, but I for one am a supporter of the 'tanking'. Yes I am a STH, and yes I care if the team stays here. But based on the current attendance level at Conseco doing what we've been doing isn't going far to keep the team here.

I submit that sitting the top players while losing (essentially showing the fans that you don't care if you win or not, even if you aren't saying outright you are deliberately losing) will halve the current attendance. As I said above, if you think 11K and 5K are the same attendance, just wait.

vnzla81
01-27-2010, 04:28 PM
You honestly believe Bird would think that? Come on man, stop with the whole Birds an idiot routine. The guy is smarter than that and honestly I won't blame him if a trade doesn't go down for Murphy or Foster.

I never say he is an idiot, the thing is that JOB likes Murphy and Foster a lot and if they feel that they can go to the playoffs he would keep them not just for one year but two when their contracts expire and I don't want to see another year of the same.

Naptown_Seth
01-27-2010, 04:47 PM
I submit that sitting the top players while losing (essentially showing the fans that you don't care if you win or not, even if you aren't saying outright you are deliberately losing) will halve the current attendance. As I said above, if you think 11K and 5K are the same attendance, just wait.
Yeah. Finally you understand what I've been complaining about.

Sitting Roy, Rush, Price and McRoberts has in fact helped lose more games and has cut the attendance.

Oh, you didn't mean them? You meant it would be bad to sit Troy and Dun??? Yes, doing that would lose more games than they are now (see: mythic 5 game streak)

I think every single person on the "play the kids" side of the debate thinks this would WIN MORE GAMES. Tanking is what they are doing now. Playing 3pt bombs and poor defense while some of the talented young guys are forced to constantly justify their existence is exactly how we got to this point.

Lance George
01-27-2010, 04:56 PM
So selling 11K per game and selling 5K per game is the same thing? I don't think so.
Could you elaborate on where your 5K figure comes from? Looking over the past eight years of NBA attendance (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance), I see no figures coming even close to that, so I'm forced to conclude you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're deliberately using scare tactics propaganda.


The NBA's lowest average attendance per game...

2003: Cleveland, 11,496
2004: Atlanta, 13,798
2005: New Orleans, 14,221
2006: Portland, 15,049
2007: Memphis, 14,654
2008: Indiana, 12,221
2009: Sacramento, 12,571
2010: Memphis, 12,990
Average: 13,375


What's interesting is that the Pacers' average attendance this season (13,578) is around the same it's been for the past three years (13,920) despite the fact that we're having our worst season, percentage-wise, since 88-89. This is made even more alarming by the fact that league-wide attendance is the lowest it's been since 2003.

I think this speaks to something I've thought for a long time now - that a bad team with promising players is more interesting than a mediocre team with peaked players. On that note, I submit that the promise that comes with a top-five draft pick is gonna increase interest in the team more so than an additional 5-10 ultimately meaningless wins will.

If you're worried about the team moving, you should be rooting for a high draft pick this season. Bring in a young talent that will add some excitement and hope to the team.

BillS
01-27-2010, 05:01 PM
Yeah. Finally you understand what I've been complaining about.

Sitting Roy, Rush, Price and McRoberts has in fact helped lose more games and has cut the attendance.

Oh, you didn't mean them? You meant it would be bad to sit Troy and Dun??? Yes, doing that would lose more games than they are now (see: mythic 5 game streak)

I think every single person on the "play the kids" side of the debate thinks this would WIN MORE GAMES. Tanking is what they are doing now. Playing 3pt bombs and poor defense while some of the talented young guys are forced to constantly justify their existence is exactly how we got to this point.

Once again, that is a separate discussion. I agree that Troy gets too many minutes. I don't see how Rush and Roy could get many more minutes than they are already getting. Price's minutes have been steadily going up. McRoberts is the only one not playing quality minutes, and I haven't seen him burn it up in the few minutes he's been on the floor recently, BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT HERE. Let's move it to another thread, let's start a thread about how playing those guys will make us better.

However, in this thread, if we played those guys and started winning a few games the OP and others would be complaining that we are winning and that we need to go back to something that will keep us on a losing pace. That's what I'm arguing against.

Playing guys you think will help us win? Go for it. Arguing over who is best on the floor - great, I love it. Saying that we need to play guys even though we lose with them because it will get us John Wall - nope, not flying with me.

McKeyFan
01-27-2010, 06:08 PM
I believe we should play "the right way."

Always. All the time.

I can handle a season with few wins if the team is striving to play the right way, is emphasizing defense, is taking high percentage shots, and hustling.

If this kind of ball leads to a high draft pick. Excellent.

If it leads to more wins than other types of strategies, even better.

What I don't believe in is bad basketball, playing the wrong way, bad defensive players and gimmick offenses.

I don't care if they win a few more games than the group playing "the right way."

I don't care if they tank, because I don't care about them anymore. They play the wrong way.

I don't stay on board if the whole thing is about keeping a player's value up until they trade him. That's not honorable. (Btw, I'm convinced this is not the case with Murphy. It's JOS devotion.)

I do happen to believe that if we played the right personnel and played the right way, we would win far more games than we do now and probably make the playoffs. But even if we didn't, I would feel good about supporting a team trying to win.