Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31

Thread: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

  1. #26
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,671

    Default Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    Quote Originally Posted by sav View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm going to respectfully disagree. The point that is being made is that very rarely does tanking result in a championship...for anyone.
    True or not, the Bunny used a flawed premise to show it. We could agree with him that tanking is a bad idea and doesn't work for the Pacers getting a championship, yet he didn't really show that so he added nothing to the conversation except words.
    What he essentially did was a logistical fallacy.
    All Indiana Pacers have flown on planes, therefore flying on planes keeps the Indiana Pacers from winning championships. That would be the same flawed argument.


    EDIT: Although it's really as pointless to debate something the Bunny has written because it implies he has some credibility beyond the ability to string words and sentences into paragraphs. He's simply an apologist. Always has been and always will. It's perfect for him to officially be on the Pacers' payroll to at least justify it.
    Last edited by Bball; 08-24-2017 at 06:09 PM.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bball For This Useful Post:


  3. #27
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,718

    Default Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    Well this happens to be my #1 cause celebre which I rant about every few months starting about 20 years ago. Of all the sports franchises that should have a fanbase that realizes that "stuck at mediocre" is utter BS and that tanking is not required to build a championship caliber team, the Pacers are the top of the heap. 61 wins, the most wins in the NBA is nothing to sneeze at. Nearly all NBA title winners are pulled from the top 2 seeds in either conference, especially the win total champ. That year required the Pistons to get Sheed gifted to them for free via a trade followed by buyout deal. The team with the best win % versus West opponents that season? The Pacers. They were the favorites to win the title.

    THe 1998 team did something no other team ever did - took Jordan to 7 games after he began his championship runs. No other team did that. And they had the lead on the road late in the 4th quarter.

    The 2000 Pacers outscored the Lakers in the Finals. Sure the game 5 blowout was the reason, but another reason was the fact that game 4 was so tight and required Kobe's first moment of heroism when he saved them from losing once Shaq fouled out.


    By my count that's 3 teams that weren't just happy to be there, but were actually legit title contenders if not favorites.

    And to be fair, you had the Knicks down 3-2 coming back to Indy for a chance to face the Rockets in the Finals. Then you had the Magic in game 7 with a chance to again face the Rockets, and that time they were the Dream Rockets that had to run a set of upsets to get back to the Finals. The Pacers were more than capable of beating that Rockets team, and in fact they had kicked the hell out of them in that first year when they began a late season surge in their run to the playoffs after hovering near .500. I just posted about this a few months ago.


    Fans do this crap all the time, they hate that feeling of losing and love to dismiss their own team as method of emotional protection. But from a betting standpoint, from a neutral "do they have a chance" standpoint, all 5 of those squads were just a break away from a title. These were not flukes, especially when it kept happening.


    And all of them had stared down just missing the playoffs, no cap space, no major trades to fix thing, no high draft pick. In each case the only real change was a coaching change.

    You trade your all-star (Detlef) for a guy who never makes the ASG. This gets you from 8th to minutes away from the Finals?

    You make no real moves other than to get a coach who will play Jalen Rose and you push Jordan harder than any team ever did.

    You again trade an all-star (B Miller) for a guy not even close to ASG level on a technicality trade (Pollard) and you win 13 more games and go from 3 straight years of 1st round losses and bad draft position to the #1 team in the league?



    The stats and facts don't lie. Stockton, Malone, Payton, Kemp, Barkley's Suns - these are all title caliber teams that didn't win the title. Championships in most sports and in most seasons feature 4-5 teams that can really win it all. You might as well say the undefeated Patriots were garbage because the Giants upset them. It's silly. In sports if you want to win a title you have to beat at least 1-2 other teams that are also legitimately capable of winning the title. Otherwise what have you actually won?



    At this point people have decided a false narrative because they see a high draft pick on a winning team and they just excuse away all the contradictions. The fact is that if you aren't named Lebron, Curry, Duncan, Kobe or Shaq you probably didn't make your team a title winning team. And you'll notice that in several of those cases the team didn't use a high draft pick to get that player on their roster. Most teams with top 5 picks DO NOT DRAFT a one-a-generation caliber player, and only once-a-generation type of players win titles nearly by themselves.

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


  5. #28
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    22,776

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    We've had so many excruciating close calls.

    In 94, we had a Game 6 in Indy that would have sent us to the NBA Finals.

    In 95, we couldn't win a damn road game in Orlando, and inexplicably were blown out in Game 7.

    In 98, we just had a "holy crap, we're really close to eliminating Michael Jordan" deer in the headlights Game 7 fourth quarter.

    99 is always the most sickening. Just surreal. I can live with losing to Jordan or Shaq, but not a squirrelly 8 seed.

    2000 we ran up against one of the most dominant players ever at his apex. If only that Reggie 3 goes in at the end of OT. I still don't think we would have won the series, but we would have had a Game 5 in Indy with a chance to go up 3-2.

    04 - we were unquestionably a better team than Detroit prior to the gift of Sheed (JO used to run over them before Sheed, who knew how to defend him). Then you have the Prince block.

    13 - Vogel commits the biggest brain fart in the history of NBA coaching by taking a prime beast Hibbert out in the most important play of season. We also had probably the worst bench of any team in Conference Finals history. That was an NBA Finals caliber starting unit.

    14 - never mind, I've already mentioned enough anguish.

    While we've had some brutal close calls, we've been an incredibly successful franchise without having one of those top 5 talents.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  7. #29
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    44
    Posts
    32,795

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strummer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Good (long) read. I always enjoy Mark's articles. It's great having a knowledgeable writer that's been around the team so long. He's like an old friend. Unfortunately it seems like some of the younger generation value snark over substance. Sign of the times I guess.

    For those of you expecting Thad to be moved, I'll point out this bit. It's not a direct quote from Walsh so I don't know if he named Thad specifically. But it could indicate they intend to keep Thad around.
    I will have no problem keeping him this season, but if the right trade comes along where we can get some type of an asset....even if it's a 2nd round pick or some younger middle-to-lower tier prospect on a rookie contract while not adding too much to the 2018 Salary Cap.....then I have no problem trading him. My hope is that if we do keep him for this season, he will opt out with his Player Option looking for a long term contract elsewhere.

    I have always loved him as a Player and his veteran experience will help...even for this season. But given that I do not think that he's not likely to be considered part of the long-term core and I think that he still has some trade value....if the Pacers have the option to acquire some assets in exchange for him....then I am fine with moving him.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

  8. #30
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,718

    Default Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    BTW, the Pacers HAVE HAD A TOP 5 PICK in the middle of all of this "failure to win it all". That top 5 pick helped the Pacers less than almost anything else they did in the last 30 years. That's part of the issue with tanking for picks, what if you use them to draft Bender?

    I think being smarter than other GMs regarding known talent and financial opportunities is a far more controlled environment to work in which is why teams like the Spurs stay on top. Yes they lucked into Robinson/Elliot and then again with Duncan, but they also turned a late 1st into Hill which turned into Leonard (who still wasn't at top 10 pick). And they built around Duncan with other low picks (Parker, Manu).

    Kobe, not a top 10 pick. Lebron, FA with Miami, Shaq, FA with Miami and LA. And btw, the Lakers NEVER TANKED. The pre-Kobe Lakers are actually another example of a team "stuck at .500" or actually a bit better. You are a lot better off dealing with known quantities, especially if you can evaluate those situations better than the competition.

    Plenty of smart scouts failed to recognize draft busts, and throw in injuries to show just how much of a guessing game the draft is. There is at least 1-2 top 10 pick MISSES every single year. Every year by people paid a lot of money not to F that up, with tons of support staff and data and experience. It's a lot easier to make a smart trade or a smart contract deal (not a steal, just good for both parties).

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


  10. #31
    Member sav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North Central Indiana
    Posts
    3,628

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Tanking Is Not the Answer (Pacers' Highest Heights Weren't the Byproduct of Bottoming Out)

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    BTW, the Pacers HAVE HAD A TOP 5 PICK in the middle of all of this "failure to win it all". That top 5 pick helped the Pacers less than almost anything else they did in the last 30 years. That's part of the issue with tanking for picks, what if you use them to draft Bender?

    I think being smarter than other GMs regarding known talent and financial opportunities is a far more controlled environment to work in which is why teams like the Spurs stay on top. Yes they lucked into Robinson/Elliot and then again with Duncan, but they also turned a late 1st into Hill which turned into Leonard (who still wasn't at top 10 pick). And they built around Duncan with other low picks (Parker, Manu).

    Kobe, not a top 10 pick. Lebron, FA with Miami, Shaq, FA with Miami and LA. And btw, the Lakers NEVER TANKED. The pre-Kobe Lakers are actually another example of a team "stuck at .500" or actually a bit better. You are a lot better off dealing with known quantities, especially if you can evaluate those situations better than the competition.

    Plenty of smart scouts failed to recognize draft busts, and throw in injuries to show just how much of a guessing game the draft is. There is at least 1-2 top 10 pick MISSES every single year. Every year by people paid a lot of money not to F that up, with tons of support staff and data and experience. It's a lot easier to make a smart trade or a smart contract deal (not a steal, just good for both parties).
    YES!!! EXACTLY!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •