View Full Version : People forget Ron may have struggled...but so DID PACERS!!!

08-09-2004, 10:46 PM
We struggled because we were poor outside shooters, and if your going to beat Detriot's D, good outside shooting is a must.

08-09-2004, 10:51 PM
I don't think injuries were a major deciding factor in the Eastern Conference Finals.

08-09-2004, 10:56 PM
I think you could make the case that a big reason that the Pacer's struggled was because Ron was struggling -- not necessarily the other way around.

08-09-2004, 11:16 PM

08-09-2004, 11:20 PM


08-09-2004, 11:21 PM

08-09-2004, 11:44 PM
the pacers struggling when artest does arguement does have some merit to it. When we won, artest averaged 20. When we lost, 14. Our winning percentage when artest scored 20+ was insane, that percentage put to 82 games was a 71-11 record.

EDIT - :confused:, i just combined two stats, and they seem to contradict each other almost. I am sure that both are correct. Odd, huh?

08-09-2004, 11:51 PM



That was the first thing that popped into my head, too........

08-10-2004, 01:42 AM
indeed it did. JO was being a warrior out there. And we were in it till the end in Detroit in game 6. Sure ron made that bonehead play, but ask yourself this, if we don't have ron, and it's peja...are we even there? I highly doubt it. Because they could easily devise a plan to stop him.

08-10-2004, 10:43 AM
I don't think injuries were a major deciding factor in the Eastern Conference Finals.

injuries were a very huge factor in deciding the E.C. Finals. With a healthy j.O. and Tinsley Pacers would have been NBA Champs. Going back to Indy with a very badly injured J.O. and Tinsley for Game 5 cost us the series.

I disagree. <Look at title>

08-10-2004, 01:20 PM
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...But not. That's a fact & I hope the 04-05 Pacers realize that this is the year to win the title.


08-10-2004, 01:23 PM
I think you need to change your statement.

The Pacers MAY HAVE been champs if not for injuries.

There are other, more major factors that played a part:
1. Inconsistent / nonexistent perimeter shooting.
2. An inability to keep Rasheed off the boards at critical moments. I.e. a refusal on the part of our superstar to block out.
3. An inability to prevent Rasheed from hitting open jumpers on the baseline in critical moments.

There was enough "blame" to go around. But basically, we were beaten by a MORE CONSISTENT team.

They consistently penetrated the lane, they consistently got points when they desperately needed them and they consistently prevented us from scoring points at critical points in Q4.

I'm not necessarily saying Detroit is a better team, because the teams were very evenly matched. But there is no argument that they played better when both teams had to dig down deep.