THE TANK IS BACK.

[vnzla81]

Uhh. 16 teams are going to make the playoffs. 20 will be in, if you include the play in tournament. So, ummm... yes.

If Lakers had a healthy Lebron/AD all year they are contenders, if Golden State got a healthy Curry/Wiggins they are contenders, if Chicago has a healthy Ball they are playoff contenders, if the Hornets got a healthy Ball/Hayward/Oubre they are playoffs contenders, if 20 other teams don't have any injuries they are playoffs contenders.


Acting like Pacers are the only team that had somebody injured reason why they are so "scary" is delusional at best.

[vnzla81]

There are lots of different ways to measure team health for a season. One simple way is just games lost to injury, period. By that metric the Pacers are the 14th healthiest team with 131 total games lost to injury. This is a little simplistic, because losing your top guy is obviously more impactful than losing your 8th guy. One way to try to do some normalization is to look at how much salary was paid to injured players. By that metric the Pacers were the 4th healthiest team, paying $12,671,135 to players unable to play in games.

In my view, the Pacers were at worst average in the injuries department, and more realistically they were considerably above average in injury luck this season. A real rare treat for the Pacers in recent history.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim this team would be better if only they were healthier. It isn't likely to be much healthier than they have been. This isn't 2k, you can't turn injuries off, every team has them. Editing in a source here if anyone was curious: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/injured-...mulative-team/

People are also celebrating the Pacers record with Hali while ignoring all the injured players on the other teams.


Pacers won a lot of games because they were the healthiest team for a while.

[LongTimePacerFan]

There are lots of different ways to measure team health for a season. One simple way is just games lost to injury, period. By that metric the Pacers are the 14th healthiest team with 131 total games lost to injury. This is a little simplistic, because losing your top guy is obviously more impactful than losing your 8th guy. One way to try to do some normalization is to look at how much salary was paid to injured players. By that metric the Pacers were the 4th healthiest team, paying $12,671,135 to players unable to play in games.

In my view, the Pacers were at worst average in the injuries department, and more realistically they were considerably above average in injury luck this season. A real rare treat for the Pacers in recent history.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim this team would be better if only they were healthier. It isn't likely to be much healthier than they have been. This isn't 2k, you can't turn injuries off, every team has them. Editing in a source here if anyone was curious: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/injured-...mulative-team/

Duuude. I just can't. They lost Haliburton for a stretch and went like 1-11. I don't care if Myles Turner and TJ McConnell have been mostly healthy. I'm talking specifically about when Hali is right.

With Haliburton, this is an over .500 team. The end.

[LongTimePacerFan]

If Lakers had a healthy Lebron/AD all year they are contenders, if Golden State got a healthy Curry/Wiggins they are contenders, if Chicago has a healthy Ball they are playoff contenders, if the Hornets got a healthy Ball/Hayward/Oubre they are playoffs contenders, if 20 other teams don't have any injuries they are playoffs contenders.


Acting like Pacers are the only team that had somebody injured reason why they are so "scary" is delusional at best.

WHO are you arguing against? What is happening here?

Yes, healthy Lakers, Bulls, and Hornets teams would have won more games. And....

WTF does that have to do with anything. None of those teams are even any healthier now.

My point is that the Pacers are an above .500 team when healthy. They are currently healthy. Therefore, the expectation should be that they should finish the season near or above .500.

You responded by saying nuh uh, because other teams have injuries right now. Checkmate.

This is a real exchange that just occurred.

[Cubs231721]

There are lots of different ways to measure team health for a season. One simple way is just games lost to injury, period. By that metric the Pacers are the 14th healthiest team with 131 total games lost to injury. This is a little simplistic, because losing your top guy is obviously more impactful than losing your 8th guy. One way to try to do some normalization is to look at how much salary was paid to injured players. By that metric the Pacers were the 4th healthiest team, paying $12,671,135 to players unable to play in games.

In my view, the Pacers were at worst average in the injuries department, and more realistically they were considerably above average in injury luck this season. A real rare treat for the Pacers in recent history.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim this team would be better if only they were healthier. It isn't likely to be much healthier than they have been. This isn't 2k, you can't turn injuries off, every team has them. Editing in a source here if anyone was curious: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/injured-...mulative-team/

I think you and V are arguing against people who are not in this thread. LongTime is not saying the Pacers were unlucky with injuries this year. He's not even saying the Pacers should have been a .500 team this year. All he's saying is that they are healthy now, so looking at their record when healthy is a better gauge of how to project the last 19 games. I bet he would even say his prediction is only accurate if Haliburton doesn't miss more time.

P.S. The salary indicator is a particularly bad metric to use for the Pacers who are near the bottom in total salary and their best player by far makes pennies. Not saying it's wrong with how it ranks the Pacers (I'd have to do the legwork on a better metric to know) but it's a particularly irrelevant one to use for this team.

[Dece]

I am arguing that his view point is only 1 level deep and the world is more complicated than 1 level. The Pacers are a .500 team when healthy AGAINST WHO? This isn't a one variable scenario, they aren't scrimmaging themselves. Against who, is the bare minimum second factor. Unhealthy teams? Are the Pacers when healthy favored against the Bucks when unhealthy? It's just a really overly simplistic thing that amounts to nothing.

In regards to your PS you're welcome to go find your own metric, I clearly didn't create spotrac, but I provided two reasonable statistics and both suggest the Pacers have been on the average health or better side of the league. I don't find it to be valuable discourse to say well I don't like that and then not provide an alternative.

[vnzla81]

WHO are you arguing against? What is happening here?

Yes, healthy Lakers, Bulls, and Hornets teams would have won more games. And....

WTF does that have to do with anything. None of those teams are even any healthier now.

My point is that the Pacers are an above .500 team when healthy. They are currently healthy. Therefore, the expectation should be that they should finish the season near or above .500.

You responded by saying nuh uh, because other teams have injuries right now. Checkmate.

This is a real exchange that just occurred.

"Pacers are an above .500 when healthy", how many of the teams they played were not healthy?

We both can play this game.

[Cubs231721]

I am arguing that his view point is only 1 level deep and the world is more complicated than 1 level. The Pacers are a .500 team when healthy AGAINST WHO? This isn't a one variable scenario, they aren't scrimmaging themselves. Against who, is the bare minimum second factor. Unhealthy teams? Are the Pacers when healthy favored against the Bucks when unhealthy? It's just a really overly simplistic thing that amounts to nothing.

In regards to your PS you're welcome to go find your own metric, I clearly didn't create spotrac, but I provided two reasonable statistics and both suggest the Pacers have been on the average health or better side of the league. I don't find it to be valuable discourse to say well I don't like that and then not provide an alternative.

In regards to your first paragraph, that would be highly valuable if you were talking about a small sample size or were trying to compare the Pacers to another team. But when you are talking about over half a season sample size, the easy answer is they faced a broad cross section of the league during those games, some healthy and some not. And in the last 19 games they are going to face a broad cross section of the league, some healthy and some not. There shouldn't be a super meaningful difference.

There's a big difference from saying the Pacers should be an above .500 team for the season, and the Pacers play like an above .500 team when healthy so I expect them to play that way while they are healthy now. Those are two completely different things.

As for your last point, unfortunately a metric that would make the most sense isn't publicly available. I have zero issue with your first metric as crude as it is. And I honestly like the second metric overall. It's just that trying to use something that only decently correlates with winning (salary) is going to make some outliers. And as I pointed out, there are reasons why the Pacers would be an obvious outlier. But as I said, that doesn't mean I think either of those are wrong. Without a better metric, the best I can say is I don't know, other than the Pacers have felt reasonably healthy this year.

[Dece]

I won't belabor this much further but I guess I'll leave it with, I don't think it's as simple as they played a broad section of teams during that sample, or as simple as they have a broad section of teams left. There are several things impacting that. The schedule is somewhat geographic in nature, west coast trip, etc, as well as teams aren't playing the same in November as they are in March. The rosters change with the trade deadline and good teams get better as the season goes on.

In the remaining games there's the Knicks twice, the Pistons 3 times, Philly twice, Milwaukee twice -- it's very East-centric, outside 3 games in Texas and one in OKC.

Only semi on topic maybe I should write a script to see each team's record without their top player or two, and another one for each team's record vs teams without their top player or two. This discussion has made me curious.

[owl]

Ultimately I think one the best metrics is your record
You pretty much are what your record says you are
So right now the Pacers are not a playin team

[kent beckley]

WHO are you arguing against? What is happening here?

Yes, healthy Lakers, Bulls, and Hornets teams would have won more games. And....

WTF does that have to do with anything. None of those teams are even any healthier now.

My point is that the Pacers are an above .500 team when healthy. They are currently healthy. Therefore, the expectation should be that they should finish the season near or above .500.

You responded by saying nuh uh, because other teams have injuries right now. Checkmate.

This is a real exchange that just occurred.

Hey, I get it. You are not losing your mind, your point makes perfect sense.

[kent beckley]

Haliburton said in his postgame comments that making the playoffs is important to both he and the team.

[vnzla81]

Haliburton said in his postgame comments that making the playoffs is important to both he and the team.

Play in is not playoffs even if you want to celebrate that.

[vnzla81]

Anyways today we are rooting for Chicago, Miami, Orlando and NY

[kent beckley]

Play in is not playoffs even if you want to celebrate that.

Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled.