Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Are we too hard/picky?

  1. #1
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Are we too hard/picky?

    One of the arguments against the importance of our 61 win season was that it was a weak East.

    OK.

    BUT, look what I found.

    Everyone would agree that the 1986 Celtics were a great team, right? The Lakers were damn good too, correct? After all, Boston won 67 games that year, and LA 62.

    Guess what. In the East, only THREE teams had a winning record. The #8 seed was Chicago with a horrible 30 wins. The 6th and 7th seeds won 39 games each.

    Out West must have been different, right? Not really. 6 winning teams. The 7th and 8th seeds won 37 and 35 games "respectively".

    Even that crappy Celtics team we swept in 2004 won 36 games (6 more than the '86 8th seed Bulls).

    I have to conclude one of two things here. Either we're entirely too hard on ourselves today, or we're far too soft on the past.

  2. #2
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,955

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Neither.

    The top 1/4 of the NBA back then was stacked with great players. It wasn't that the bad teams were that bad, it was that the good teams were just great.

    If you check the bottom of the standings, almost all the bad teams had at least one great player on them as well.

    the 30-win bulls had Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge, and they only won 30 games because Jordan missed 70 games with a sprained ankle.

    The 23-win Knicks had Patrick Ewing and Bernard King, two of the all-time greats.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lifelong Indy-area resident
    Age
    62
    Posts
    4,654

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    I think folks are too hard on the present.

    People keep downplaying the 61-win season. After all, the Western Conference was the stronger conference that year, right? The East was weak!

    But just like every other time that I see one of these threads mention the 61-win season and the possibility of downplaying it, I will continue to point out that the Pacers were the strongest regular season team that year, period. We had a better record against the WC teams than did any team from the WD itself. We had a better record against any division than any team within the division itself.

    But Kstat is definitely right. Several years ago, the NBA was extremely inbalanced, year after year after year. Despite the record that the Pistons have this season, there is better parity across the top 1/2 to 3/4 of the league now than there has ever been.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    I think a great deal of these types of arguments are brought on my "Devil's Advocate" threads. If somebody says that Jeff Foster is a great rebounder, somebody just as quickly will pipe in that he pads his stats with his awful shot. However, much like your scenario, rarely is the same test applied evenly. I'd venture to say that most rebounding specialists aren't great shooters (Ben Wallace, Dale Davis, Dennis Rodman, etc.)

    Part of it is fun, because looking at dissenting opinions will either increase your support of your current position or make you reconsider. But some of the things get a bit ridiculous at times.

  5. #5
    stipo
    Guest

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Neither.

    The top 1/4 of the NBA back then was stacked with great players. It wasn't that the bad teams were that bad, it was that the good teams were just great.

    If you check the bottom of the standings, almost all the bad teams had at least one great player on them as well.

    the 30-win bulls had Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge, and they only won 30 games because Jordan missed 70 games with a sprained ankle.

    The 23-win Knicks had Patrick Ewing and Bernard King, two of the all-time greats.
    Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge? Great players?

    And on another note, in ten years we'll be able to look back and name "great players" on most 2005-2006 NBA teams because we will recognize them from their entire career. There are players on the Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, etc. who are now early in their careers or simply haven't been recognized as "great" just yet.

  6. #6
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    YES
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  7. #7
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,955

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by stipo
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge? Great players?

    And on another note, in ten years we'll be able to look back and name "great players" on most 2005-2006 NBA teams because we will recognize them from their entire career. There are players on the Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, etc. who are now early in their careers or simply haven't been recognized as "great" just yet.
    Who called either player "great?"

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  8. #8
    Member rabid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,464

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you check the bottom of the standings, almost all the bad teams had at least one great player on them as well.

    the 30-win bulls had Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge, and they only won 30 games because Jordan missed 70 games with a sprained ankle.
    You have to admit, it looks like you're implying that either Charles Oakley or Orlando Woolridge is a great player.

  9. #9
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,955

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by rabidpacersfan
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have to admit, it looks like you're implying that either Charles Oakley or Orlando Woolridge is a great player.
    .

    Well, there was that "Jordan" guy.....

    Nah, I must have been referring to Oakley and Woolridge. SIlly me.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  10. #10
    Lithfan
    Guest

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    You are forgetting one simple thing. The weak/strong East/West argument is ridiculous if you judge only by the number of wins.

    Clearly, if one team has 60 wins, lots of others will have loosing record. May be you can judge West against East, but not the way you done.
    The East had low number of teams with winning record during Indiana 61 winning game season because they lost to Indiana! The same applies to 1986. So you can say that the teams with winning record above 60 are better relative to other teams playing at the same time. However, you can't say anything about those teams with loosing records relative to todays. Thats a simle math.

    So all this weak/strong arguments are not right IMO. What I can say as a fan, is that basketball was more enterntaining back in 80's. Today teams Vs 80-90's are winning in athletism but loosing in skill IMO.

  11. #11
    stipo
    Guest

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    .

    Well, there was that "Jordan" guy.....

    Nah, I must have been referring to Oakley and Woolridge. SIlly me.
    Well, I don't know why you mentioned the other two,
    but ANYway....Jordan was the Kobe of his day back then (minus the bad reputation). In fact Kobe is scarier now scoring-wise than Jordan at that time IMO, but Kobe's team still stinks. So looking back in twenty years we'll see the great Kobe Bryant on a bad Lakers team (along with Odom, who we ALSO may see as great depending on how his career pans out). Will we say,"Wow!The competition must have been fantastic back then, the Lakers couldn't even win with those two on the roster!" History is funny that way.


    Oh, yeah, and Lithfan, I'm no good at math, but your reasoning seems excellent to me. There are only so many wins to go, around so to speak.
    And as far as the 80's style of play--I miss it so much it hurts!!!

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by beast23
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But just like every other time that I see one of these threads mention the 61-win season and the possibility of downplaying it, I will continue to point out that the Pacers were the strongest regular season team that year, period. We had a better record against the WC teams than did any team from the WD itself. We had a better record against any division than any team within the division itself.
    When reviewing the weekly Power Rankings that year, it annoyed me that the Pacers could never seem to get the No. 1 spot because of constant focus by the writers of the overall weakness in the East. The Twolves, Kings, Lakers and Spurs took turns rotating throughout the top 5 over the Pacers, who were routinely ranked No. 2. When the Pacers went out West and won 3 of 4 over top teams, their sole loss would be emphasized. By season's end, the Pistons and Rasheed had come on strong, but they too were regarded as inferior by the ranking writers.

    I know, it serves me for caring at all about so shallow a thing as the Power Rankings back then, but beast's post reminded me of an annoying memory of that season.

  13. #13
    stipo
    Guest

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    ^^^^
    Yeah, I've learned that no matter how good your team is, you don't ever think you get the national respect you deserve. (Unless the team is the Colts, then all the attention becomes embarrassing in the end).

  14. #14
    woman without a team
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,055

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Are we too hard/picky?
    Hell yes.

  15. #15
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    When you show me people picking on the Pacers *after* they've won a championship, at that time the answer is "yes."

    Until then, it seems to me that the average Pacers fan isn't really demanding a championship. They're demanding entertaining, or a certain style of play that appeals to "Hoosiers." Or they're demanding a contender. Or they're demanding a team that they can still afford tickets to see.

    I'd say we are still too soft on them, if anything. Too many fans are still making excuses for them.

    I'm not saying the PD community reflects the average Pacers fan, BTW. Now, if we had 15,000 season ticket holders on here, that might be different.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  16. #16
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,028

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    We fans will get the team that we demand.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "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

  17. #17
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Jay and Bball, I think you blur the line between "being hard on a team" and "what you are happy with from your team". What I mean is, there is saying "61 wins was great for what it was, but we still didn't win the title so I'm not fully satisfied," and then there is saying, "61 wins didn't mean much because it was a weak East, it was a matter of circumstance, no competition, etc." Not a giant leap between those two, but I see a difference.

    Personally I don't like either thought that much. I was thrilled with that season. I didn't like how it ended. I want more. But that does not for one second take away the joy that I had from having such a good team that year.

  18. #18
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,028

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Personally I don't like either thought that much. I was thrilled with that season. I didn't like how it ended. I want more. But that does not for one second take away the joy that I had from having such a good team that year.
    Maybe it was the subsequent seasons that sucked the joy out of it...



    -Bball "Off to the game after some stops along the way"
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "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

  19. #19
    Member denyfizle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nap Town
    Posts
    1,409
    Mood

    Default Re: Are we too hard/picky?

    Yea, I think since there's just so much more tools to utilize and with the advancement of basketball as a science and just the whole growth of the sport, we are harder on ourselves nowadays. Just look at this forum, what used to be just every average Homer 20 years ago, now sit infront of the computer at least for 15 minutes a day talking about basketball as if it were their day jobs. (myself included ofcourse) Advancement is always better though. The only thing I think really that the "old skool" have on us is their real love for the sport, dedication to win and toughness.

Posting Permissions

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