Dece, you said something that is absolutely wrong here:
Let's check out the percentage of assisted buckets for the other 4 of our starters:
David West was assisted in 63.3% of his baskets in the regular season and 66.1% of his baskets during the playoffs. So, David was assisted significantly more than Roy.
Paul George was assisted in 57.6% of his baskets in the regular season and 48.7% of his baskets during the playoffs. He was assisted more than Roy in the RS but less than him in the playoffs since he shared ball handling duties with George Hill.
Lance Stephenson was assisted in 58.9% of his baskets in the regular season and 50.7% of his baskets during the playoffs. Lance was assisted more than Roy in the RS and a bit more in the playoffs after Vogel gave him the green light to create for himself and attack after a defensive rebound (we all remember his coast to coast baskets).
George Hill was assisted in 44.8% of his baskets in the regular season and 48.2% of his baskets during the playoffs. He was the only player that was consistently assisted less than Roy and that makes sense since he is the PG so he's the one that gets to assist others instead of the opposite.
Let's check our back-ups a bit:
Ian Mahinmi: 69.8% in the RS, 53.8% in the playoffs (7 assisted out of 13 baskets)
Tyler Hansbrough: 52.8% in the RS, 46.2% in the playoffs (12 out of 26)
Orlando Johnson: 61.1% in the RS, 50% in the playoffs (1 out of 2)
DJ Augustin: 64.1% in the RS, 70.4% in the playoffs
Sam Young: 63.8% in the RS, 66.7% in the playoffs
Gerald Green: 63.2% in the RS, 61.9% in the playoffs
Jeff Pendergraph: 80.3% in the RS, 62.5% in the playoffs
Our second unit was in contrast with our first unit. Our first unit had players that could create their own shot and thus they didn't rely on being assisted by their teammates. The second unit had only 1 such player (Hansbrough) and thus needed to be assisted in a much higher rate. And they were.
Dece, I never said that the Pacers can do no wrong and have no weaknesses. We certainly have weaknesses. Every team does. We have weakness in both sides of the floor.
Defensively, we struggle against big men that can shoot the long range jumper. That's why we lost all of our games against Brooklyn. We cannot defend the Deron Williams - Brook Lopz PnP well. With the addition of KG and PP, I expect the Nets to be even tougher opponents for us (since we didn't beat the Celtics last year either).
We also struggle against top notch ball movement. We couldn't hope to defend the Spurs at all, for example. When the Orlando Magic used the Spurs playbook against us, they blew us out.
Offensively, we lacked spacing due to Danny's injury and Green's inability to shoot after January (also caused by an injury). We weren't a huge threat from 3 and that allowed opposing teams to double down on our bigs in the post more often.
We were also turnover prone. Our less turnover prone was George Hill at 10.7% turnover rate. West was at 12%, Lance at 14.4%, Roy at 14.5% and PG at 15.2%. Paul George has to clean up his handles more, Roy has to learn to play better against double teams, Lance has to stay in control more and West has to attempt safer passes more often.
I never said that we are without weaknesses, my friend. I just believe that we can make this work in the end. You don't believe that. That's the difference between the two of us. That's why we disagree a lot in these forums.
You said in a previous post of yours in this very thread that you have watched basketball physically a lot more than some of other members of this forum. I have no reason to doubt you, of course. But does that makes you any more qualified to speak about basketball than us? No, it doesn't.
At the start of the season, you said that when we face the Grizzlies we will see which is the best rebounding and defensive team in the league. Which team ended up being the best rebounding and defensive team in the league? The Pacers. The Grizzlies were 2nd in both categories and they were excellent at both tasks but the Pacers were a tad better.
When Roy Hibbert was shooting below 40% (39.7% it was at the time if my memory serves me right), we placed a bet. I said that Hibbert would reach 45% by the end of the season. You said that you didn't think that it would happen but you'd like it to happen because that would help us win games. Hibbert ended the season shooting 44.8%. I lost the bet but Hibbert improved more than you expected and helped us win games. We were both happy about it.
Before the playoffs we placed another bet. It was a sig bet this time. You said that we weren't going to advance past the second round. In fact, you were so down due to our late season play (which was horrific, I agree) that you doubted if we were going to be able to advance past the first round. In any case, I took the bet. As expected, we advanced past the second round. We reached the ECF and we pushed the eventual champs to a game 7.
Reaching the ECF looked like a pipe dream to you. To me, it looked like the natural course of events. It is the end result of the internal development that we witnessed throughout the season. But that's exactly why you don't believe in this team. You don't see this internal development. You don't see the improvement. You refuse to acknowledge it when it happens and come up with excuses as to why it happened (such as "the Pacers are in the East so it doesn't court"). You don't give credit where credit is due, my friend. That's why we disagree all the time. Because I pressure you to acknowledge the team's efforts and that's something that for whatever reason you don't feel comfortable doing.
I never said that the Pacers are perfect, Dece. I don't believe in perfection, anyway. What I have always said is that you consistently underestimate this team and its players. That's all.