Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

  1. #1
    Member Harddrive7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,176

    Default 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    I'm curious to see what you guys think of the two teams. Is the make up different? Could this Pacer team take the 2000 Pacer team? We had size and depth then and now. I know it's still early, but I thought that it would be worth looking at.

    BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Geezer?

  2. #2

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Probably. The 2000 team is pretty old now.

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PacerDude For This Useful Post:


  4. #3

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers





    This team has the potential to be much better, but they have to prove it. Those Larry Bird teams were like an well-old machine. Lots of vets who knew their role and how to win. We have some of that too, but with more youth and overall talent.

    It would be interesting to imagine a game against each other.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sopgy For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Member Harddrive7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerDude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Probably. The 2000 team is pretty old now.

    Let's use our imagination. Are these two totally different teams in respect to defense or offense? We had Reggie and now PG. We had Ric and now Roy. Dale and West... The 2000 team had maturity and experience, always a team effort on both ends of the floor. I see some similarities but this team seems to have a better offense, more weapons and deeper. If we were to put this starting 5 with Granger and Hill in the line up against the 2000 teams starting 5, who would win that match up?

  7. #5
    Member Harddrive7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    That's kind of what I was thinking. That Larry Bird team against this Larry Bird team. Is Larry staying along the same lines? I could see this team in a few years being exactly like the other team as far as vets knowing their roles. That 2000 team was very hard to beat for that reason.

  8. #6
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    26
    Posts
    30,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Lance and Reggie would probably just end up killing each other.

    “WE NEVER SURRENDER, WE NEVER GIVE UP, WE KEEP ATTACKING”- Frank Vogel
    momentarygodsblog.com https://twitter.com/momentarygods

  9. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    It is ka Thankee sai Major Cold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Garrett, IN
    Posts
    9,112
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    2013 hands down. Sure Dale could keep Hibbert in check. But who is going to guard West. And PG on Miller? Lance on Rose? Hill toasting past Mark? Maybe Croshere would be the X-Factor.

    This team is so far better than them. 1998 though? Antonio would equal things out. McKey would be serviceable against PG at worse.

    I think when it is all said and down, this team will be the litmus test of future teams in Indy.
    Last edited by Major Cold; 11-07-2013 at 02:20 PM.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Major Cold For This Useful Post:


  12. #8

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Considering Miller and Rose weren't the best defensive players, Lance and George would have a field day with them. I'm sure though with Reggie running around screens Lance would go crazy chasing after him.

  13. #9
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

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




    This team has the potential to be much better, but they have to prove it. Those Larry Bird teams were like an well-old machine. Lots of vets who knew their role and how to win. We have some of that too, but with more youth and overall talent.

    It would be interesting to imagine a game against each other.
    Agreed. We can't really compare the 13-14 team to the 99-00 team until the season is over, but right now I think the 13-14 team has the maturity (minus perhaps Lance) and chemistry (if not superior chemistry) and now experience of the 90's teams, but with a superior talent level more in line with the 02-03 team. We might finally have enough positive ingredients here to win some rings. I can only hope.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  15. #10
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,541

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    I think our current team is better, but that 2000 team is the exact kind of team that would give us problems on defense. The shots we tend to allow are Reggie's favorite shots, and Rik Smits would get those short-to-midrange jumpers open all day against Hibbert.
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

  16. #11
    Your Daddy RobRoy317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Age
    21
    Posts
    128

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed. We can't really compare the 13-14 team to the 99-00 team until the season is over, but right now I think the 13-14 team has the maturity (minus perhaps Lance) and chemistry (if not superior chemistry) and now experience of the 90's teams, but with a superior talent level more in line with the 02-03 team. We might finally have enough positive ingredients here to win some rings. I can only hope.
    When is Lance going to be considered mature enough for us PD'ers? This is something people mention a lot when it comes to Lance. Since the choke sign, and the Juwan Howard thing (2 years ago?, and I put the blame on Juwan, and not Lance), I haven't seen much reason to believe Lance is immature. I know you said perhaps Lance, but I still see this frequently enough amongst many posters to the point where I think it's overstated. It's like when people said Joseph Addai was a great pass blocker a few years ago, all the time.
    "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

  17. #12

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    I bet Vogel would put Lance on Reggie and PG on Rose. The shooting of the 2000 team would be a big weapon against the 2013 D. Hill and Watson's size and length would neutralize Max's post game.

    2013 is a vastly superior defensive team. 2000 is much better on offense.

    West vs. Davis would be a badass-off for the ages.

  18. #13

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    This team is better equipped for playoff basketball due to a lesser reliance on jump shooting, better rebounding, and better overall defense. In those days we regularly won by outshooting people and despite taking fewer shots. That was a formula that became harder to pull off against the best teams.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  19. #14

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Talent wise, no doubt 2013-2014 team can take on the 1999-2000 team. But never underestimate that old guys in terms of wits and their teamwork. I mean, it took the young and dominant duo of Shaq and Kobe 6 games to dispose the 2000 squad that is supposed to be fading away due to age.

    If they'll duel for 7 games, I'll surely bet my money on the 2000 squad for now, until this current team can show me that they are more successful than the old guys from way back.

  20. #15
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,541

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by RobRoy317 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    When is Lance going to be considered mature enough for us PD'ers? This is something people mention a lot when it comes to Lance. Since the choke sign, and the Juwan Howard thing (2 years ago?, and I put the blame on Juwan, and not Lance), I haven't seen much reason to believe Lance is immature. I know you said perhaps Lance, but I still see this frequently enough amongst many posters to the point where I think it's overstated. It's like when people said Joseph Addai was a great pass blocker a few years ago, all the time.
    I think people are talking about maturity on a lesser scale. Lance showboats after every shot if it's the least bit contested. Some people may like his attitude, but some don't. I don't, but then I'm not a trash talker. I prefer to let my game do the talking, so I like players to do the same except for the really big plays, and then only if it doesn't stop them from getting to their spot on the floor in time.

    But you can see that his game changes once he gets on a streak of good plays too. He pulls out the dribbling moves, and takes lower percentage shots.

    Upon reflection, I think for Lance maturity is a bit of a misnomer. I think he struggles with level-headedness sometimes.
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  22. #16
    Your Daddy RobRoy317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Age
    21
    Posts
    128

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think people are talking about maturity on a lesser scale. Lance showboats after every shot if it's the least bit contested. Some people may like his attitude, but some don't. I don't, but then I'm not a trash talker. I prefer to let my game do the talking, so I like players to do the same except for the really big plays, and then only if it doesn't stop them from getting to their spot on the floor in time.

    But you can see that his game changes once he gets on a streak of good plays too. He pulls out the dribbling moves, and takes lower percentage shots.

    Upon reflection, I think for Lance maturity is a bit of a misnomer. I think he struggles with level-headedness sometimes.
    Gotcha, I understand that now. Yeah I was thinking attitude-wise, and not the game changing hot streak low percentage shots. I'll have to pay attention to that more next time. Yeah I was just thinking of his antics but I guess last year he was blowing in LeBron's ears on free throws and stuff. Solid response bro. *fist bump*
    "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

  23. #17
    THE WITCH IS DEAD!!! Coopdog23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Da Bank
    Posts
    2,933

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    2000 team had better shooters. I think size is almost equal between Roy/West and Smits/Davis.
    Smothered Chicken!

  24. #18
    Member naptownmenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    4,636

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    The 2000 team wouldn't have as much trouble shooting against the 2013 Pacers as most teams. They were so savvy on offense which isn't surprising considering they had Mark Jackson. Their inside-outside offense is way better than the 2013 team's same approach.

    However, the 2013 team is so good defensively (especially against the 3 point shot) and they are dominant in an area that the 2000 team was weak in - Offensive rebounding. Roy and West would have a field day against the 2000 team rebounding their misses for extra possessions. That 2000 team were one of the worst teams in the league at rebounding their own misses and keeping the opponent off the offensive glass.

    I think this 2013 team, just 5-games in, would win in 7 games but it would be very close. With a healthy 100% Danny Granger, I think they could win in 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Larry is not coming back, he didn't have a meeting with Orlando for not reason, yeah he is coming back to the NBA but not to the Pacers, the notion that he is a taking a year off and then come back is absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trader Joe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    GOOD GOD THAT'S LARRY BIRD'S MUSIC!

  25. #19

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Zan Tabak is the difference maker IMO.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to PacersHomer For This Useful Post:


  27. #20
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Keep in mind that 2000 Rik Smits probably can't play as many minutes as 2014 Roy Hibbert, so that's a problem for those 2000 Pacers, who then are guarding Roy with Dale Davis, while Scola and West are feasting on Austin Croshere.

  28. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    I think we need to do a little exercise first. Which team was truly the best '98, '99, or '00? Yeah '00 got to the finals, but getting to the finals doesn't automatically make you better than a team from another season. Could be you had better match-ups in the playoffs than in a different season, or the conference as a whole wasn't as good.

    Or we could just compare eras. Take the best of '98 - '00 and compare it against this team. That way you are getting both good Mullens and Rose alongside Reggie, and Smits foot problem isn't as bad yet. You still have both Davis Bros. plus Big Smooth. Then you can add pre-injury Granger to this years squad, and Tyler Hansbrough.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  30. #22
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,533

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    '97 team? Probably the best offensive team I have seen in Blue and Gold and I'm a Defense guy, but they were devastating in offensive execution.

    '97 team had easily the best chance to win it all, imo. I think they probably should and would have minus 5 minutes at the end of game 7 against the Bulls.

  31. #23
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,628

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Either '97 or '99 for me. I think the '99 team lost because they assumed they had it won.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  32. #24
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacer Purgatory Praying for Paul
    Posts
    3,561
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    Experience vs. youth. Basketball IQ vs. athleticism. Offensive firepower vs. smothering defense. Purposeful movement of players and the ball vs. explosiveness and some mistakes.

    Difficult call right now. By next year, I take the current squad, but I am not really sure right now. I am only sure that it likely would be Pacers in 7!

  33. #25
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,521

    Default Re: 2013 Pacers vs. 2000 Pacers

    I think they'd stomp the 2000 team pretty easily. The 97-98 team is a different story. I think this team dwarfs that team talent wise, but I also think the 98 team is the one team that this team would struggle to matchup with.

    Rik made a career of destroying slow big men at the elbow. Reggie was never dominate, but he was also unguardable. Meaning, never the guy to simply dominate the other team with 35 for a whole series, but he'd get his 20, with only 12 shots and there was nothing any body could do about it.

    Big matchup advantages this team would have is Hill would destroy Mark Jackson on both sides of the court, while at certain times of the game they could switch PG on to Mark and make his life living hell. Hill would probably be better defending Reggie anyways as he's better at getting through screens so PG would probably defend Jackson for the length of the game.

    It would be a close series simply because of matchups, and as we all know, at the end of the game, the 98 team only had to be within 3 points to hit overtime, or within 2 points to win the game. With all that said, I say this team wins simply because of sheer talent.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Posting Permissions

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