Before I get into my theory I just want to say Granger is one of my all-time favorite Pacers.
With that being said, I think Granger could be a main factor to why our play has been so poor even when we win. My main argument is that our already slow 2nd unit is even more slow with him. When we had OJ and even S.Hill playing it seemed like the 2nd unit played at a much faster pace. Sure there were a lot of turnovers, OJ had a shooting slump, and S.Hill didn't bring much but the unit as a whole had much more energy. The biggest differences are C.J. and Scola seemed much more efficient without Granger and second unit's energy carried over to the starters. The second unit just seemed much more dynamic without Granger.
I'm not a great analyst and haven't looked much into the numbers but a quick glance at the records with and without Granger are similar (20-5 without and 20-7 with). The teams we lost to though are a bit different. Without Granger we lost to CHI, POR, OKC, DET, and MIA. With him we've lost to TOR,ATL, PHO (twice), DEN, ORL and DAL.
With Granger I think we match up better with the teams we need to worry about in the playoffs but we struggle against younger more athletic teams. Based on this I'm not sure we need to change much if anything. Granger will continue to improve, PG will get over the baby mama drama, we'll get some rest, and everything will be great.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of team and player stats with and without Granger.