A successful model for Pacer to emulate

[8305]

I believe it was the 2004/05 season. Nobody expected much from the Seattle Supersonics. They had a bunch of guys in their contract year and really hadn't shown any sign of even being a playoff team. They wound up winning over 50 games and giving the eventual champ San Antonio a real run for their money in the playoffs. They totally imploded the following season, McMillan left and players seemed to lose motivation. The model for their successful season has always intrigued me though.

My recall is, three guard rotation Allen, Ridinour, Daniels
small forward Lewis, Radmonavich
Bigs a committee of James, Collison, Evans, Fortson

They played alot of small ball, pushed tempo and shot the three well. That was the same year Phoenix introduced their uptempo game. The biggest difference between the two teams was Seattle played a little more defense and in the end were a better playoff team that year.

I like the Pacer roster of 2009/10 better. Comparison below

Allen vs Granger, no reason to think Granger can't match anything Allen did
Lewis vs Dunleavy, we fall a little short but not ridiculously so
Ridinour vs Ford, games aren't very comparable but would like to think Ford could be equally effective
Daniels vs Watson and Jones, Pacers at least match
Radman vs Murphy, Murphy is better
James vs Hibbert, decent chance Hibbert can be as effective as James
Evans vs Foster, Foster is better
Collison and Fortson vs Hansbrough , Collison and Fortson didn't get that many minutes
There's no real match to Rush

I think we compare pretty favorably. So what does everyone think, Pacers win 50 this year?

[MillerTime101]

I dont see any similarities in the teams except that they both had low expectations, which is the case for about half the NBA.

[Reginald Wayne]

Seattle only gave up 97 points or so that year....and scored about 98 or 99. I don't think the Pacers are like them.

[Boneman2]

And soon after not only do they suck, they relocate. Not the right model to imulate. I'm glad you shared your thoughts though. Thanks

[Miller4ever]

If there's anyone to emulate, I vote the '87-'88 Pacers. They had a future. The roles on the team were also strikingly similar. They finished with 38 wins and tied with two other teams for the last two playoff spots, but lost on tiebreakers.

Vern Fleming = TJ Ford
Sure there's a gap in decision making and assist total, but we had a starter there.

Scott Skiles = Travis Diener
Young white backup PG with some abilities running an offense and taking care of the ball.

Reggie Miller = Brandon Rush
A pick that angered many (Steve Alford and Jerryd Bayless) but outside touch and willingness to do whatever is necessary to win.

Chuck Person = Danny Granger
Blasphemy to say that Danny Granger isn't the future of our franchise, but in terms of seeing it from 1987, Chuck Person was the star of that young team, and Danny Granger will be better, but they are the same role.

Wayman Tisdale = Roy Hibbert
Young big man with a soft touch around the basket and all-star potential.

John Long = Mike Dunleavy
Experienced veteran with scoring ability from the outside to push the youngster (Rush/Miller).

Steve Stipanovich = Troy Murphy
Stable big man who worked the boards, and provided the team with invaluable contributions.

Herb Williams = Jeff Foster
Pacers mainstay (up until that point).

[8305]

If there's anyone to emulate, I vote the '87-'88 Pacers. They had a future. The roles on the team were also strikingly similar. They finished with 38 wins and tied with two other teams for the last two playoff spots, but lost on tiebreakers.

Vern Fleming = TJ Ford
Sure there's a gap in decision making and assist total, but we had a starter there.

Scott Skiles = Travis Diener
Young white backup PG with some abilities running an offense and taking care of the ball.

Reggie Miller = Brandon Rush
A pick that angered many (Steve Alford and Jerryd Bayless) but outside touch and willingness to do whatever is necessary to win.

Chuck Person = Danny Granger
Blasphemy to say that Danny Granger isn't the future of our franchise, but in terms of seeing it from 1987, Chuck Person was the star of that young team, and Danny Granger will be better, but they are the same role.

Wayman Tisdale = Roy Hibbert
Young big man with a soft touch around the basket and all-star potential.

John Long = Mike Dunleavy
Experienced veteran with scoring ability from the outside to push the youngster (Rush/Miller).

Steve Stipanovich = Troy Murphy
Stable big man who worked the boards, and provided the team with invaluable contributions.

Herb Williams = Jeff Foster
Pacers mainstay (up until that point).

When picking Seattle I was focusing on the success they had in that particular season. Certainly not what came thereafter for that franchise. I still think there are similarities between the individual pieces of that team and the makeup of this Pacer roster. Also the style of play.

The comparison to 87/88 Pacer team is interesting but I sure hope we are further along than that squad. That team was 5 or 6 years away and the only guy who was still around when really good things started to happen was MIller.

The only similarity I see between Person and Granger is they play the same position and shoot the 3 well. If I'm remembering correctly, during that year Chuck Person was successful in getting Jack Ramsey fired. I was always amazzed at how Chuck wasted what looked like a very promising career.

[count55]

Seattle did not "push the tempo." They were the fourth slowest-paced team in the league that year.

[Indy4Life]

I think we can all see the long term goals on this franchise. We are making decisions based more on 2011 and 2012 than we are for wining this year. We will challenge for the playoffs this year, I firmly believe this team has the talent to be as high as the 6th seed in the east.

Making the playoffs in a rebuilding year is a great sign of things to come for this franchise.

[IrishLuck31]

I understand our 2011 plan, and most of our future assets are just starting to develop (Hansborough, Hibbert, Brush), but Granger is already 26, and I think its going to be really fustrating to watch him in his prime produce possibly his best seasons these next two seasons, while the franchise says we are just waiting till 2011.

[Miller4ever]

Granger has never really relied on his athleticism. He will sustain his prime for longer a la Duncan and Kidd, etc. Injuries will slow him down if anything and then he'll start to peter out at 33.

[Gremz]

Granger has never really relied on his athleticism. He will sustain his prime for longer a la Duncan and Kidd, etc. Injuries will slow him down if anything and then he'll start to peter out at 33.

Agreed. I kinda get the feeling he'll have a Paul Pierce type career. The longevity should be good, and I do believe he has the attributes and attitude to alter his game if necessary as he gets older.

[Miller4ever]

^^Exactly. Anybody remember the article on him when he became an all-star about his "old-man moves"? He plays using step-backs jumpers, and plays low inside the paint. He also makes his living at the line. Offensively, he'll remain very productive.

[IrishLuck31]

^^Exactly. Anybody remember the article on him when he became an all-star about his "old-man moves"? He plays using step-backs jumpers, and plays low inside the paint. He also makes his living at the line. Offensively, he'll remain very productive.

Those are great points, and I certainly hope so. Just on average, Wing players see a significant decrease in their averages and stuff after turning 30

[Kuq_e_Zi91]

^^Exactly. Anybody remember the article on him when he became an all-star about his "old-man moves"? He plays using step-backs jumpers, and plays low inside the paint. He also makes his living at the line. Offensively, he'll remain very productive.

Yep, one of my favorite articles from last year. Another one, of course, was the one that compared Danny to a platypus. Anyways, here's the "old man moves" blog from HoopsHype by Eddie Johnson.

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/johnso ... man-moves/