Yes, with the current record the Pacers would have a good record in the West, but those West teams have to play each other 4 & 3 times where the Pacers only have to play the West teams 2 times each. That's not comparing apples to apples. Of the 27 Pacers losses, 11 of those losses were to West Conf teams, so if the Pacers were playing in the West Conf it stands to reason they would have more losses. Thus not the same record they currently have due to playing weaker EC teams they have beaten only 2 times a year. The Pacers would probably be fighting for 6th seed in the West instead of 2nd seed in the East.
Last edited by Justin Tyme; 04-03-2013 at 10:17 AM.
Great post, to bad some people are not going to understand what you are talking about, some people are also going to be offended for suggesting that they could be in 6th place in the west.
Just so you know Reggie said that the Pacers are the second best team in the league last night lol.
Last edited by vnzla81; 04-03-2013 at 10:20 AM.
Not sure if this has been said, but the Pacers aren't in the West. This team wasn't built to play in the West. So why waste time discussing what the Pacers record would be if they were in the West? What if the Pacers had Kobe would be a better discussion...
You don't think GMs build to have the best record in their division, conference and look at who they will face in the playoffs and most of the regular season?
So does 1 more assist per game, and/or 1 more steal per game make one player "quality" and one player "not quality?"
18-11 vs the West (62.1%) and 30-16 vs. the East (65.2%).
I don't see a huge difference in a sport where teams go on winning streaks and losing streaks all the time. If one game vs. the West were a win rather than a loss, 19-10 would be 65.5%.
As I recall, we had a higher winning % vs. the West last year.
People are over-analyzing data from a small sample size in which the "difference" can arise solely by random fluctuations.
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.
DG for 3
Well even if the Pacers had the same exact record as they do right now, but played in the west they would be in 6th place.
But I don't really care, we are in the east, lucky for us. One of these years the east will be better and the reverse will be true, and then I'll say tough luck for us, but that is the way it goes.
Would it surprise you if ESPN / ABC were to ignore the importance of a game like the Pacers / Knicks ( a game that will likely decide which Team ends up in the 2nd seed ) in favor of switching to the Heat / Bulls game?
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
The East just got decimated by injuries this year, moreso than the West. Yeah, the Spurs missed 50 combined games from their big 3 and the Timberwolves were destroyed, but almost every team in the East was missing a star or high quality starter. We didn't have Granger, the Sixers didn't have Bynum, the Bulls didn't have Rose, the Wizards didn't have Wall, the Celtics are missing Rondo, and the Knicks had their top players miss action from time to time. If everyone was healthy I think the East would stack up well with the West. Bad luck.
With MIA resting their players however, they may not pull the Pacers/Knicks. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they were to do so though.
Or people are refusing to comprehend the facts in front of them, and choose to ignore realism. The Pacers play 52 game against EC teams. Overall the EC is the weaker conference, but some feel the Pacers can play 52 games against better competition and still be a 2nd or 3rd seed in the WC. Optimism is one thing, realism is another. Some need to take their blue/gold glasses off and get realistic. This comes from someone who was a diehard Pacers fan when most on this board were either just a twinkle in their father's eye or were in 3 corners. I wore those b/g glasses too, but there is this dadgum thing called realism that just kept popping up it's ugly head and biting me. I've tempered my optimism with realism. I find it works out much better that way.
Denver has only lost 3 games at home, SA and OKC only 5, Memphis only 8, Utah and Clippers only 9, and GS only 11. Being in the WC the Pacers would have to play these teams more often at home, so why is it that these teams are going to be constantly losing to the Pacers? B/c we are Pacer fans, and it just has to be so? I understand Homerism, and have been known to get carried away with it myself, but rtealism has a way of bringing one back earth.
You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
When you put Hill in the group you did, you put him last in that group, and that's exactly where he falls. Name one team that that has the 6 PG's I mentioned who would trade their PG for Hill? I didn't even mention Damian Lillard who as a rookie is better than Hill. There are WC b/u PG's who average more asts than Hill! That's absolutely pathetic.
A PG is the engine who runs the machine. He gets his team mates the ball in a position to score. He makes his team mates better players. Hill doesn't do that. He's a combo guard with a scoring mentality. Lance is a better passer than Hill, and gets the ball to his teammates to score. I expect Lance to average more asts next year than Hill. Paul as a SF averages as many asts as Hill does.
For 2 years, I have heard how great Hill's "D" is. It ain't that great folks! He's slightly above average on "D". He got overbilled on "D" when Bird traded for him, and too many drank the kool-aide. He can't hang his hat on his "D" by any means. He's better than Ford, DC, Tinsley, Watson, and Augustin, but that really doesn't say alot.
To your comment that "D" is 50% of the game, someone must have forgot to tell Nash that, and he was once the premier PG in the NBA.
In essence, what I'm saying is Hill is a combo guard playing PG, and IMO the Pacers need a true PG in order to ever win a championship unless they can get another big time Allstar. I don't see that happening as much as I would like it to happen. I like Hill as he's a nice BB player, but just not the PG the Pacers need to win a championship with the way the team is currently set up. JMOAA
This only applies if you think the worst team in the WC is better than the Pacers. We could go with that if the Pacers were a doughnut against the West, but they are 18-11.
Let's play a little game and do some calculations based on our current winning percentages against the East and West multiplied by the increased number of games.
One of our remaining games is against the West, for the sake of argument I'll assume we would lose it, that makes us 18-12, or 60%. Simplifying it (not taking into account what division and whether we'd play who 4 times or 3 or whatever), for 52 games that would make us 31-21 in the conference.
Our record against the East, again for argument's sake assuming we lose out, would be 30-22, or 57% (oh, look, WORSE than our record against the West...) or, assuming we play the EXACT percentage we have now, should be 65% or 34-18. Using the worst case, our new "western conference" record against those wimpy East teams would be 17-13, and the average case would be 20-10. In the former situation, we'd total 48-34. In the latter, we'd be 51-31. Those are percentages of .585 and .622, respectively. If everyone in the West finishes this year with the EXACT percentage they have RIGHT NOW, we'd be 6th. Gosh, JUST WHERE USING OUR CURRENT RECORD PLACES US.
Now, that would be skewed a bit depending which division we were in playing either LAC or SAS 4 times vs playing them only 3, perhaps, but this shows that the current record is really not that far off from where we'd be if we were really playing in the West.
Now, this is without using the intangible of perhaps building a team differently based on the higher offense style in the West, or having more of an ability to adjust based on playing teams a third or fourth time or even speculating which of those super west conference teams would end up in the east if we were in the west. Bottom line, though, is that it is NOT BEYOND THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY that we'd be AT LEAST a mid-level playoff team in the West.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
The West has been for at least 5-6 years much more offensive minded, while the East is more defensive. West has 9 of the NBA's top offenses this year, East has 7 of the top defenses. Good defenses have a tendency to play up to competition more, and thats why I think the East is more of a dogfight and you get teams like washington who are the NBA's 5th best defense beating virtually every top team in the NBA this season and still being overall crappy.
Carmel HS Class of 2011