PDA

View Full Version : Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4



Trophy
09-07-2012, 12:04 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings


Bang For The Buck (BNG): Wins during the past three years (regular season plus postseason) per revenues directly from fans, adjusted for league schedules.

Fan Relations (FRL): Openness and consideration toward fans by players, coaches and management.

Ownership (OWN): Honesty and loyalty to core players and local community.

Affordability (AFF): Price of tickets, parking and concessions.

Stadium Experience (STX): Quality of arena and game-day promotions as well as friendliness of environment.

Players (PLA): Effort on the field and likability off it.

Coaching (CCH): Strength of on-field leadership.

Title Track (TTR): Championships already won or expected in the lifetime of current fans.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?page=UltimateStandingsPacers2012
By Max Klinger | ESPN The Magazine


Last year's rank: 48
Title track: 66
Ownership: 18
Coaching: 25
Players: 16
Fan relations: 20
Affordability: 3
Stadium experience: 15
Bang for the buck: 3

The lockout meant a lot of things to a lot of people, but for the Pacers the resulting collective bargaining agreement was the reaffirmation of a specific management philosophy. In light of the CBA changes, the Pacers' brand of small ball suddenly seemed less like a toss of the dice and more like the strategy of the future for small-market clubs. It's a simple strategy but not easily duplicated: precise draft picks (Granger, Hibbert, George), prudent trades (Barbosa) and prescient free agent signings (West). That's how the Pacers created the kind of chemistry that took them to the Eastern Conference semifinals (their first since 2005) with the third-lowest payroll in the league. With a smaller front office and less money, they simply can't afford the toe-tapping free agent games that other big-market teams can, and what has resulted is a finely calibrated personnel strategy. The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient (the Thunder have the 14th-lowest payroll; the Pacers have the 28th). And this homespun management style has caught on well with the plainspoken basketball fans of Indiana. It helps that the Pacers were voted the most affordable team in the NBA. It also means that categories like ownership, coaching and players received 40-plus point boosts in our poll. With the new CBA set to start showing its teeth in the years to come, the Pacers are set up to be the franchise of the future.

Kid Minneapolis
09-07-2012, 12:23 PM
Wow, interesting.

Sandman21
09-07-2012, 12:47 PM
Remember when people were balking about Hibbert getting that 58 MIL? We don't make top 20 in Fan Relations and Players without him. Press like this is only going to be good news for the team, and Roy is a big part of this.

Like a lot of people have said, when you factor in what Roy does off the court combined with his on court work, he is well worth the money.

Coopdog23
09-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Roy has the potential to be the best center in the league. Paul George has the potential to be the best guard in the league. Pacers are a rising franchise and they are going to be contenders in the East for a while just like the Reggie teams of the 90s and early 2000s

Trader Joe
09-07-2012, 03:59 PM
Yeah, but where's our superstar?

DGPR
09-07-2012, 04:07 PM
I saw this a few minutes ago and couldn't believe ESPN would have us in the top 5 of anything! Way to go Pacers!

edit: Man what a tumble the Colts have taken @ #57. Ouch

TMJ31
09-07-2012, 04:26 PM
My 2 sports loves in the top 4. Good day, indeed :)

Merz
09-07-2012, 07:10 PM
My 2 sports loves in the top 4. Good day, indeed :)
Your Angels are at 15. Not too shabby as well.

Eleazar
09-07-2012, 07:16 PM
They have Lucas Oil ranked higher than Conseco? Lucas is nice, but Conseco is something else.

Constellations
09-11-2012, 04:58 AM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings

Loved this as well:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?page=UltimateStandingsPacers2012

Hypnotiq
09-11-2012, 07:54 AM
We are miles off OKC do we have a superstar no heck we dont even have a single player that is as good as Harden or Westbrook

not even the same area code

Flibertygibits
09-11-2012, 09:24 AM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?75314-Ultimate-Standings-Indiana-Pacers-4

Heisenberg
09-11-2012, 10:22 AM
More "proof" that there's no excuse to not sell freaking tickets. It's not the franchise. The team's good. Bunch of milkdrinkers. Exciting dunkers. Tickets are dirt cheap. The Colts suck. Sweet new scoreboard. Outstanding building. Whatever excuse people want to make, it's not true anymore.

We'll see how much this state "loves" good basketball.

J7F
09-11-2012, 10:29 AM
More "proof" that there's no excuse to not sell freaking tickets. It's not the franchise. The team's good. Bunch of milkdrinkers. Exciting dunkers. Tickets are dirt cheap. The Colts suck. Sweet new scoreboard. Outstanding building. Whatever excuse people want to make, it's not true anymore.

We'll see how much this state "loves" good basketball.

Unfortunately though a lot of basketball fans don't see the NBA as "real basketball"...

BillS
09-11-2012, 10:51 AM
And please realize this is a huge jump from previous years, it isn't like we've sat at this level for a while. It took a few years for the fans to walk, it will take some time to get them back.

vnzla81
09-11-2012, 11:44 AM
We are miles off OKC do we have a superstar no heck we dont even have a single player that is as good as Harden or Westbrook

not even the same area code

Yeah I stopped reading at "the Pacers are the OKC of the east" part.

SycamoreKen
09-11-2012, 01:41 PM
I get the magazine at home and didn't even see us listed at 4 until I went all the way through the list and then back to the top. Just wasn't expecting us to be so high.

SycamoreKen
09-11-2012, 01:45 PM
Yeah I stopped reading at "the Pacers are the OKC of the east" part.

If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. ;). And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.

Major Cold
09-11-2012, 02:10 PM
If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. ;). And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.
Does efficient mean from a fiscal standpoint? Then the efficiency is what is keeping us from being elite.

vnzla81
09-11-2012, 02:21 PM
If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. ;). And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.

Yes I almost finish reading the whole thing until I got to that part and then I was looking to see if this was some article from thebleacherreport people.

BillS
09-11-2012, 02:27 PM
Yes I almost finish reading the whole thing until I got to that part and then I was looking to see if this was some article from thebleacherreport people.

"could be the" is not the same as "are the" - it means it could happen given other events than are in place now. You could argue that those actions might never take place for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that the Pacers are only those actions away from going to the next level.

There seems to be a real need on this board to say that nothing the Pacers will do, could do, or could even possibly conceive of doing can take them to any level comparable to any team in the top 10 of the NBA. Even when someone completely outside the realm of Pacer fans makes a comparison we dismiss it out of hand.

At some point we have to accept that there actually are some good things about where this team is, and that "what if" comparisons aren't completely off-base. WILL it happen - that's a basis for discussion. Is it POSSIBLE - how is that somehow in and of itself out of the realm of rational thought?

SycamoreKen
09-11-2012, 02:46 PM
Does efficient mean from a fiscal standpoint? Then the efficiency is what is keeping us from being elite.

I don't know. Middling draft picks and the lack of top tier free agent sis to blame for that.

Mad-Mad-Mario
09-11-2012, 02:49 PM
I agree what we need is somebody to develop into a star. Possibly George. That way we can get some BS calls to help us out. If Hibbert and George both achieve what we know they can achieve. I would say we are the best team in the East if one of the Big 3 is severely hobbled. Lakers on the other hand, who knows they could be amazing or flop this year

vnzla81
09-11-2012, 09:49 PM
"could be the" is not the same as "are the" - it means it could happen given other events than are in place now. You could argue that those actions might never take place for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that the Pacers are only those actions away from going to the next level.

There seems to be a real need on this board to say that nothing the Pacers will do, could do, or could even possibly conceive of doing can take them to any level comparable to any team in the top 10 of the NBA. Even when someone completely outside the realm of Pacer fans makes a comparison we dismiss it out of hand.

At some point we have to accept that there actually are some good things about where this team is, and that "what if" comparisons aren't completely off-base. WILL it happen - that's a basis for discussion. Is it POSSIBLE - how is that somehow in and of itself out of the realm of rational thought?

My point is that there shouldn't be a comparison between the Pacers and OKC, it's not even close, they have two Superstars(Westbrook/Durant) and two really good players with the potential to be All Stars for years to come(Ibaka/Harden) note that the guys with "potential" are already showing what they can do, not only that but they have a true young core, their top five players are really young and are going to hit their primes at the same time.

Now let's compare all that to the Pacers, Superstar player? nope, All Star? Roy Hibbert, players with potential that could be an all star? I'm going to name Paul George just for the sake of discussion, I like Hill but I don't think he is ever going to be an AS and then you look at Danny(29) and Dwest(32) and they are up there in age making them "not part of the future".

So at the end of the day in few years when the youngsters of both teams hit their primes OKC will probably have, Westbrook,Harden, Durant, Ibaka, Perkins and Indiana will probably have, Hill, Paul George, Hibbert and two x players, so unless you think that the Pacers have a chance to get two superstars the comparison to OKC is never going to work.

daschysta
09-11-2012, 10:14 PM
My point is that there shouldn't be a comparison between the Pacers and OKC, it's not even close, they have two Superstars(Westbrook/Durant) and two really good players with the potential to be All Stars for years to come(Ibaka/Harden) note that the guys with "potential" are already showing what they can do, not only that but they have a true young core, their top five players are really young and are going to hit their primes at the same time.

Now let's compare all that to the Pacers, Superstar player? nope, All Star? Roy Hibbert, players with potential that could be an all star? I'm going to name Paul George just for the sake of discussion, I like Hill but I don't think he is ever going to be an AS and then you look at Danny(29) and Dwest(32) and they are up there in age making them "not part of the future".

So at the end of the day in few years when the youngsters of both teams hit their primes OKC will probably have, Westbrook,Harden, Durant, Ibaka, Perkins and Indiana will probably have, Hill, Paul George, Hibbert and two x players, so unless you think that the Pacers have a chance to get two superstars the comparison to OKC is never going to work.

Hibbert is an All-Star, and still has upside, could be a perrenial all-star when it is said and done. George has potential to be a star, and at the very least should end up being an elite complimentary player. Hill doesn't need to be an All-Star for the Pacers to compete at a high level, just a very good player, which I don't think is out of his reach. Granger, and West both don't rely on athleticism for their games, decline should be slow, and West should actually be improved next year since he'll be healthy the whole time, and if Granger plays like 2nd half of the season Granger, rather than first half, he very well could make the All-Star game next year too, he still has lots of success around the league, and if he isn't shooting an abnormally horrible percent for the first half of the season he'll probably make the game next year if the Pacers are a top 3 seed, which is very possible.

Yes we don't have the talent of OKC, but they are probably going to have to move Harden after overpaying Ibaka, and if things go well we can compete with OKC, and Miami, though as underdogs, but not pushovers even compared to them.

We're never going to be favorites over teams like that, but we have the potential to be Darkhorses.

You don't need superstars to compete at the highest level. Is it easier? Sure, but our 90's team had no superstars, and we were 2 minutes away from sending Michael Jordan home packing. The Blazers didn't have a traditional superstar, and nearly took out the lakers multiple times, the Pistons had no superstar and won a championship. It isn't easy, but that is the lot of most teams.

Who here is comparing our raw "talent" to teams like Miami or OKC? They aren't, but we've proven to be able to compete with teams like that, a punchers chance isn't out of the question if things fall into place correctly. We aren't without talent either. If George reaches the all-star level 2 years from now we'll have 4 All stars or former all-stars still playing at a high level in our starting lineup. We didn't have the 5th best record in the NBA by accident.

Call it a fluke for now, but will you at least admit that Indy is doing something right if we win 50+ games this season?

Basketball isn't as simple as looking at names on paper and calling the winner, we've had more success than most teams in the NBA, and you can argue that we've NEVER outside of a very brief period with JO ever had what was unanimously considered a "superstar". Despite that we've made numerous conference finals, the NBA finals, and been a consistent playoff team for the greater part of the last 20+ years.

vnzla81
09-11-2012, 10:33 PM
Way too many ifs, "if West is gets younger", "if Danny plays like he played for a month last year", "if Paul George becomes an all star", "if Roy Hibbert gets better and becomes a perennial all star", with OKC I don't see any ifs, Durant and Westbrook are Superstars and Ibaka/Harden/Perkins are good young players.

And just so you know I expect the Pacers to get close to 50 wins, to me they are build for the regular season but not for the playoffs.

Trader Joe
09-12-2012, 12:32 AM
I mean Reggie is a hall of famer now so it's kind of tough to make the whole "90's Pacers didn't have a superstar" comment, I totally get where you're coming from and agree with you, but I think it's tough not to call Reggie a star.

Trader Joe
09-12-2012, 12:33 AM
Kendrick Perkins is going to be 28, is about to have his 10th year in the league, and already started to show signs of tailing off last year. I don't think I can consider him a very good young player. But yes OKC is significantly better than we are. Of course the 2004-2005 Pacers were significantly better than heck maybe the entire league, but we saw how that went down.

The point? Anything can happen. And I do think we can all agree the Pacers aren't in some bleak desert of doom right now.

daschysta
09-12-2012, 12:44 AM
Way too many ifs, "if West is gets younger", "if Danny plays like he played for a month last year", "if Paul George becomes an all star", "if Roy Hibbert gets better and becomes a perennial all star", with OKC I don't see any ifs, Durant and Westbrook are Superstars and Ibaka/Harden/Perkins are good young players.

And just so you know I expect the Pacers to get close to 50 wins, to me they are build for the regular season but not for the playoffs.

Well the ifs aren't really that huge of ifs, every team has ifs. West doesn't have to get younger, but he will be healthier than he was for the majority of last season, that is a fact barring another injury. He was putting up 15-6 in 29 mpg on 55 percent from the field in april, once he was reportedly feeling like himself, and he was one of our better players in the playoffs. It seems to be a pretty obvious that West would be improved over his early season form once he was fully healthy, remember ACL injuries like his often take well over a year to fully round back into form.

As for Granger it is a fact that a such a long slump is indeed an outlier, Danny's 2nd half performance is much closer to his career norms (around 44 percent 38-39 percent from 3...) than Danny's 1st half performance. At the very least he shouldn't shoot 35 percent from the field for an entire half season. Danny is still a very good player, I expect him to have a pretty good year.

George is potential yes, of course it is a "what if" but he does have that potenail, and is already a very good young player, just like Ibaka.

Hibbert is on the brink as well, would you not agree that many of our problems stemmed from our inability to feed the ball to Roy in the post? I have to think a good coach like Vogel can fix a problem that seems so trivial. Hibbert isn't far away from the consistent all-star level, he just needs to play 2 or 3 more minutes per game, and get more touches. He already averages 15.5-10.6-2-2.4 per 36, and I have faith in the guy to improve his game each year. I believe that he'll meet the challenge that comes with a big contract, and deliver, he just needs to improve a bit while maintaining his per minute production over a few more minutes, he's already a very good player.


I'm not arguing that we have more raw talent than OKC, but it seems we can play with the big boys about as well as they can. After all we did take the Heat to 6 games, and they only took them to 5, even had Bosh been dressed in our series we would have at least won a game too (the 19 point blowout was our win regardless of Bosh's absence.)

I don't buy that we won't improve with experience, and through acquired chemistry. We already won 53 equivalent games last season, we're already a very good team, if George even reaches a chunk of his potential, and Hibbert improves marginally we are looking at a team that can win 55ish games.

OKC has tons of talent, an absolute ton, they also aren't invincible, and neither are the Heat. We won't be favorites, but I don't believe that a team that, even in a cynics opinion such as your's is likely around a 50 win squad merits such eternal pessimism. It isn't like we've peaked in all likelyhood. Like I said, teams have gone very far, even our own, without a superstar player. Sure it is easier with a top 10 or whatever player, but great post-season success by teams structured like ours isn't really unprecedented.

For example ECF isn't in any way out of the question for us next season , especially if we pick up the 2nd seed and Boston picks up the 3rd, thus playing Miami in the 2nd round, I would consider that to be a great building block, and a successful season.

I don't buy Brooklyn, New York, Philly or Chicago without Rose being better than us next season. New York has a superstar, and they lost in embarrassing fashion by an average of 14 points. We won two games, and took Miami to 6 games with a margin of 6.5 points in Miami's favor on average, and our series was actually competitive in 3 of the Miami victories, whereas New York posed no serious challenge in any of the games aside from the one. Superstar Chris Paul's Clipper's were effortlessly swept by San Antonio, who no longer has any superstar players.

Superstar players are good to have, but the situation without "superstars" isn't so grim as you would tell it. It isn't like any team other than SAS/LAL/MIA/OKC are significantly better than we are, we fit nicely into the next group of 2nd tier teams, along with 4 or 5 other teams, and still have some upside. It isn't a bad place to be.

daschysta
09-12-2012, 12:54 AM
I mean Reggie is a hall of famer now so it's kind of tough to make the whole "90's Pacers didn't have a superstar" comment, I totally get where you're coming from and agree with you, but I think it's tough not to call Reggie a star.

Reggie was a star, certainly, but was he a superstar in any given year? He was great at what he did, he was one of the all time greats in terms of efficiency, but he wasn't the prototypical model of a superstar, in the mold of a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant etc... one that effected the game on both ends greatly, and could just bury you every single night. Reggie was a star, but I don't think that he was a superstar in the mold that vnzla is referring. Reggie is my all time favorite player, but he was a superstar at one thing only, scoring the ball efficiently, most players that have that rank are either guys that can score dominately in isolation and off the dribble, and players that effect the game on both ends at an elite level/ across multiple domains.

Reggie wasn't that, he was amazing, but he was never that, but i'm assuming VN is referring to guys like LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Prime Kobe, Shaq, Bird vein. Reggie was a star player, he'd be our best player, but we have "star players" (guys capable of making an All-Star team) in David West, Granger, and Hibbert, and hopefully before too long, Paul George.