Pacers Rebuild

[Nuntius]

The Spurs model is indeed a great model to follow. But there's something that the Spurs have had for 20+ years now that most actively tanking teams do not. Do you know what is it?

A winning culture.

From the 89-90 season until now the Spurs have only had one season with a below .500 record. They went 20 - 62 in 96-97 and won the #1 pick and selected Tim Duncan. They posted a .683 winning percentage in the 97-98 season (56 - 26). It's also important to know that the Spurs had a .720 winning percentage (59 - 23) in the 95-96 season.

So, they went from an .720 team to a .244 team and then back to a .683 team. The Spurs have never been lower than .600 in Duncan's tenure.

The Spurs FO is simply amazing and they have been innovators in a lot of areas. The fact that they have one of the greatest coaches in Gregg Popovich for almost two decades helps a lot as well.

But don't underestimate the impact that is provided by having a winning culture.

Tanking has its benefits when it's used timely and wise. But when you spend too many years as a bottom 5 team in the league, don't expect to suddenly start winning and become a contender unless you luck into a one generation kind of player.

[Wizop]

But there's something that the Spurs have had for 20+ years now that most actively tanking teams do not. Do you know what is it?

Popovich?

and the Spurs did the biggest tank job of all the year Robinson was hurt. I have often called Andrew Luck the Colts Tim Duncan because like the Spurs they got a #1 overall pick by having one bad year caused by an injury.

true story, I said that to a retired Colts personnel guy and he didn't have any idea who Duncan was.

[Nuntius]

But there's something that the Spurs have had for 20+ years now that most actively tanking teams do not. Do you know what is it?

Popovich?

and the Spurs did the biggest tank job of all the year Robinson was hurt. I have often called Andrew Luck the Colts Tim Duncan because like the Spurs they got a #1 overall pick by having one bad year caused by an injury.

I mentioned both Pop and the tank job

As I said a 1 or 2 year tank job in a year where a franchise changing talent is entering the draft is not a bad plan. At all.

But spending 10 or so years in the lottery just to find a player that could change your franchise, creates tons of problems.

Winning cures everything and losing creates problems. That's all

true story, I said that to a retired Colts personnel guy and he didn't have any idea who Duncan was.

Oh gosh

[Boneman2]

Great analogy between the Spurs and Colts Wizop. The only drawback is that Luck and Manning weren't teammates like DRob and Duncan. The years TD spent with Robinson were invaluable to his career.

Regardless, once TD is gone the Spurs will be sucking hind teet once again.

The Pacers on the other hand were fortunate with all their picks really, constantly mining high lotto talent in the teens. With PG however they got real lucky. In hindsight he might be the top pick in his class.

This current roster is sick and it is the 3rd contender the Pacers have had since 2000. (Miller/ smits/ davis bros.) (JO/ Artest). In fact before the brawl the pacers were a model of consistency qualifying for the playoffs 18 times in 20 seasons, including 5 ECF appearances in 7 seasons.

Ill stick with the facts when it pertains to how great the organization operates. Few have done it better than Simon/ walsh/ bird

JMann I think you would be a great proponent against the manner in which superteams form. That is truly a cause worth fighting for if you genuinely love the NBA. You should be relieved that the Pacers model is a viable option.

[Pacerlive]

A team like the Mavs could sign West. Cuban has had no issue playing guys out of position before, right now he has Brand playing minutes at C, and has had teams with A.Walker and Jamison out of position at the 3 and 5 too. It's not at all far fetched. But other teams would be a better fit, sure.

I also think it's inaccurate to claim "we got to the finals this way". The 2000 Pacer team was built with either players you got from the lotto (R.Miller 11th pick, Smits 2nd, D.Davis 13th, Croshere 12th) from years of failures, or were players acquired by trading assets you got in the lotto (Dampier for Mullin, McKey was a lotto pick who you got by trading a lotto pick, who you had acquired with a lotto pick, even Jalen was a product of gradual turnover of good 1st round picks). Plus in 2000 the real finals took place in the West, the Blazers would have beaten the Pacers too. The Pacers weren't winning a title that year, the East just historically sucked (way more than it does now).

Basically a contender is a team who only needs to get lucky once in the playoffs. These Pacers don't fit that bill.

I am sure he has no issue but PLAYERS sure do.

You think David West is going to be fine playing 30 minutes at Center? You are certainly crazy if you think David West is going to jump at the opportunity to play all of his minutes at center and get worn down at his age.

The Mavs will go after guys like AL Jefferson if they trully want to have pf/center not David West.

And are you seriously going to say that Danny Granger and Roy Hibbert should of not been lotto picks?

Its the same way with the Spurs. Tony P and Manu should of been lotto picks so where you get drafted means very little to me.

Assets are assets and it really doesn't matter where they get drafted or how you acquire them as long as you keep building a stronger team. The Pacers are still building up their assets and developing them. Lance could be the future starting sg for years to come. You take a flier on guys like him because the risk vs reward merits it which is exactly what the Spurs do.

[jman2585]

The Spurs model is indeed a great model to follow. But there's something that the Spurs have had for 20+ years now that most actively tanking teams do not. Do you know what is it?

A winning culture.

From the 89-90 season until now the Spurs have only had one season with a below .500 record. They went 20 - 62 in 96-97 and won the #1 pick and selected Tim Duncan. They posted a .683 winning percentage in the 97-98 season (56 - 26). It's also important to know that the Spurs had a .720 winning percentage (59 - 23) in the 95-96 season.

So, they went from an .720 team to a .244 team and then back to a .683 team. The Spurs have never been lower than .600 in Duncan's tenure.

The Spurs FO is simply amazing and they have been innovators in a lot of areas. The fact that they have one of the greatest coaches in Gregg Popovich for almost two decades helps a lot as well.

But don't underestimate the impact that is provided by having a winning culture.

Tanking has its benefits when it's used timely and wise. But when you spend too many years as a bottom 5 team in the league, don't expect to suddenly start winning and become a contender unless you luck into a one generation kind of player.

I covered this in my posts. You don't need to spend 10 years in the lotto if you do it properly. How many years did the Thunder spend in the lotto when Presti got there? He got there before the 2007 Lotto, and his team has had the following records since then (being built virtually from scratch):
20 wins, 23 wins, 50 wins (1st round), 55 wins (Conference finals), pro rated 59 win season (NBA Finals), and this year they are on pace for a 61 win season and potentially a championship. That team literally got better every year because they built the right way in the beginning, and had a strong foundation. Losing was no barrier to getting a winning culture, indeed it made their guys more determined to win together. You should hear guys like Durant talk about it, he tells you that at first he didn't like then direction, but then he came to understand they had to lose together first so they knew how to win together.

The Spurs are very fortunate they haven't needed to rebuild yet, because they have had alot of talent, and have seen way ahead of the curve, and they're reaping the benefit of those decisions still. But if they didn't have the assets from earlier decisions they'd have to tank, and they would. They'd get the guys to play together hard of course, just like the Thunder did... but because they were young and inexperienced they'd lose alot (in the short term).

Saying teams should not tank is bad advice, because often they should try to tank, rather than try and eke out 5-10 extra (meaningless) wins each season, because a finite number of teams make the playoffs, and they're not one of them. Something you should also bear in mind is this; Spurs fans don't actually care if they win the championship this year. They've been pretty indifferent the last few years in fact (and were surprised how well they did last year to some degree), because while their goal is of course a championship, the path they're taking of not rebuilding would happen for the next 2 and a half years regardless of whether they felt they could win a title. That's because of the unique position they're in, whereby they've already won 4 rings, and want to see Duncan off into the sunset with honour, and fans cheering. Every playoff run adds to his legacy, and will make Spurs fans happy, whereas tanking would involving getting rid of their beloved core (like Duncan, Manu and Parker), and the Spurs fanbase doesn't want that (nor does the FO). They would rather let these guys play it out (like the early 2000 Jazz did) and retire to cheers and applause, with a few more laurels on their brows (title or no). You guys are not in that position (and most teams aren't).

Saying "never tank" is a recipe for a treadmill, and even when it pans out as well as can be hoped, you end up where you guys have ended up. A good team, but not a true contender, and no real way to become a true contender. That's a good place for some teams to be in, but other teams want more (and should want more). If you guys got transported to the Western Conference, there's really no question you'd be out in the first round of the playoffs. You'd probably be pegged as a 6th or 7th seed, fighting with your Western counterparts- the Jazz (who have alot of size and D, but horrible offense, and whose backcourt is flawed).

[Jake0890]

Let me get this straight, the Pacers don't fit the bill of being contenders...
Your definition of contenders is just getting lucky once in the playoffs.
Therefore, it must take skill to be lucky.

It would no longer be luck then. Luck is simply chance.

[jman2585]

You lost me when you fell into (bad) sophistry with your 3rd sentence.

[Jake0890]

You lost me when you fell into (bad) sophistry with your 3rd sentence.

Basically, how does skill = luck?

[jman2585]

It doesn't.

[Jake0890]

It doesn't.

But if Pacers don't fit the bill of being lucky...
What makes a team lucky?

[jman2585]

You've gotten confused. A contender is a team who is so good, they only need to get lucky once to win a title. Lucky implies they're able to beat a team who might be a little bit better than them (or it's so close it's hard to say who is better, though in retrospect everyone will claim it was clear the winning team was better). Even if the Pacers are the 2nd best team in the East (which I'm not at all sure they are), they would need to get lucky more than once to win a title (more than 1 upset in the playoffs), indeed in the West they would not even get out of the first round.

[8305]

I think with a little bit of luck Indiana could win a first round series in the West.

[Nuntius]

I covered this in my posts. You don't need to spend 10 years in the lotto if you do it properly. How many years did the Thunder spend in the lotto when Presti got there? He got there before the 2007 Lotto, and his team has had the following records since then (being built virtually from scratch):
20 wins, 23 wins, 50 wins (1st round), 55 wins (Conference finals), pro rated 59 win season (NBA Finals), and this year they are on pace for a 61 win season and potentially a championship. That team literally got better every year because they built the right way in the beginning, and had a strong foundation. Losing was no barrier to getting a winning culture, indeed it made their guys more determined to win together.

You said it yourself. The Thunder did it right. BUT they were also lucky enough to draft a Durant. You won't find a Kevin Durant in every lottery. They also drafted another possible superstar (Harden) and a top 5-10 PG (Westbrook).

They drafted wisely but they also timed their tanking with strong drafts. Not all drafts are that strong.

Saying teams should not tank is bad advice, because often they should try to tank, rather than try and eke out 5-10 extra (meaningless) wins each season, because a finite number of teams make the playoffs, and they're not one of them.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're trying to say..

1) I never said that a team should not tank. I just said that a team has to time and strategically plan their tanking efforts.

2) If you're out of the playoffs anyway I don't consider tanking a bad option. It's not something I would do 10 times out of 10 but it's not something that I consider disgraceful either.

3) However, I am against blowing up a solid playoff team and rebuild just because I think that they cannot win the championship without seeing how far they can go first.

Saying "never tank" is a recipe for a treadmill

I never said that. I have no idea how you reached those conclusions.

A good team, but not a true contender, and no real way to become a true contender.

That's only your opinion. You have every right to hold this belief but you're not objective. What you say is just your subjective belief. It's not a fact.

Only time will tell if this team is a true contender or if it can become a true contender.

If you guys got transported to the Western Conference, there's really no question you'd be out in the first round of the playoffs. You'd probably be pegged as a 6th or 7th seed, fighting with your Western counterparts- the Jazz (who have alot of size and D, but horrible offense, and whose backcourt is flawed).

You cannot live with what ifs.

But for the sake of argument let's say that we are transported to the Western Conference. Let's take a look at some data:

1) The Pacers are 13 - 10 against the West in the 12-13 season.

2) The Pacers were 13 - 5 against the West in the 11-12 season.

So, we are actually doing pretty well against the West. It's not like we would suddenly fall off a cliff if we were to go there. We have proven that we can handle Western competition.

Our 37 - 22 record would have us tied for the 5th seed along with the Denver Nuggets if we were to transfer to the Western Conference tomorrow.

By the way, our Western Conference counter-part is NOT Utah. It's Memphis. That's the team that resembles our style and strenght the most.

Utah is actually a horrible defensive team. They are ranked #22 in Defensive Efficiency, they are #24 in Opponent Points in the Paint, #25 in Opponent Fastbreak Points, #20 in Opponent FG%, #19 in Opponent eFG%, #21 in Opponent TS% and #24 in Opponent 3p%.

The Pacers rank #1 in ALL of the above categories. Here's the link to the site in order to see for yourself -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/op ... -point-pct

Comparing the Pacers to the Jazz proves 1 of 2 things:

1) You don't know anything about the Jazz and just think that Bigs = good D (which is obviously false).

2) You don't know anything about the Pacers.

In any case, you are dead wrong.

The Pacers are comparable with Memphis Grizzlies. Both of them could get out of the 1st round in the West and both of them could contend in the East.

[jman2585]

You said it yourself. The Thunder did it right. BUT they were also lucky enough to draft a Durant. You won't find a Kevin Durant in every lottery. They also drafted another possible superstar (Harden) and a top 5-10 PG (Westbrook).

They drafted wisely but they also timed their tanking with strong drafts. Not all drafts are that strong.

The Thunder decision to tank (right away) was not based on a careful evaluation of up coming drafts and saying "hmm, now would be a good time to tank". The decision was made because it was strategically sound, which is why Presti did it from the moment he took over. You can rarely see how good a draft will be more than a year out (and plenty of times commentators are wrong). The 2005 draft was supposed to be extremely strong (it wasn't), while the 2008 draft outside of Rose was considered very "meh" (it was in fact one of the better drafts to have a lotto pick in). Nobody was sitting there watching the Thunder pick Westbrook or Harden and saying "boy, great, great picks. Presti just saved the franchise". In fact both those picks were heavily criticised (while Ibaka was unheralded completely). Sure, they got Durant, you need some luck, but even without Durant they would have been on the right path to contention.

You can follow any model, and if your luck is terrible, you'll fail (the Blazers are a good case in point, they made the right decisions but were crippled by injuries to their players). However that doesn't mean "oh, it's all luck, it doesn't matter what I do", because some paths are more likely to lead to success... like the one Presti took.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're trying to say..

1) I never said that a team should not tank. I just said that a team has to time and strategically plan their tanking efforts.

2) If you're out of the playoffs anyway I don't consider tanking a bad option. It's not something I would do 10 times out of 10 but it's not something that I consider disgraceful either.

3) However, I am against blowing up a solid playoff team and rebuild just because I think that they cannot win the championship without seeing how far they can go first.

Your team didn't tank when in these circumstances, and some of your fans have indeed said a team should never tank (like on the general board thread about this). Following the model of what the Pacers did seems like a good way to end up like the Bucks. No thanks. They are a classic case of a team who should blow it up.

You cannot live with what ifs.

But for the sake of argument let's say that we are transported to the Western Conference. Let's take a look at some data:

1) The Pacers are 13 - 10 against the West in the 12-13 season.

2) The Pacers were 13 - 5 against the West in the 11-12 season.

So, we are actually doing pretty well against the West. It's not like we would suddenly fall off a cliff if we were to go there. We have proven that we can handle Western competition.

13-10 doesn't inspire confidence. In reality the top 4 Western teams (to say nothing of teams like Denver) are empirically better than you in basically every reasonable measurement (despite playing tougher Western teams twice as much as you do). There is no reasonable way someone could claim the Pacers are a top 4 Western team. None.

Our 37 - 22 record would have us tied for the 5th seed along with the Denver Nuggets if we were to transfer to the Western Conference tomorrow.

By the way, our Western Conference counter-part is NOT Utah. It's Memphis. That's the team that resembles our style and strenght the most.

Except you play the weaker Eastern teams twice as much as Memphis or Utah has to. Utah is 14-8 v.s the East, and 18-19 v.s the West. It's pretty obvious their record would be substantially better in the East. It's only when you're an elite team that conferences cease to matter (the Heat would win about the same in either conference, most of their losing is from coasting, and that's what you tend to see in the West/East records of most top teams). Meanwhile Memphis is 18-5 v.s the East (a 64 win pace), and while that probably doesn't carry over literally, it's very clear they'd be winning alot more in the East (as has been true of most Western teams in the last 13 years or so). They'd be well ahead of the Pacers. Comparing you to the Jazz is a far more accurate and fair comparison.

[Pacerlive]

I am still laughing at this notion that the thunder somehow did it right.. Seattle lost their team doing it so if that's the criteria then go screw yourself.

Also lets take a honest look at the Thunder. Are they a better team now vs last year? They lost again one of their prized draft picks to a diluted down version of assets because they couldn't afford a big three there.

Now they will have to wait for those picks to develop and pay Ibaka which will cut their ability improve dramatically..

And let's completely ignore once again that the Pacers have been playing without their best player. I mean really It doesn't take an IQ north of 60 to understand why the Pacers western conference record is 13 and 10 this year. If you we're to take a teams best player or even second best player off their team their record would drop. Take Iggy or Lawson off of Denver and they would be lucky to have a record like the Pacers in the East.

[Scoot McGroot]

So, after you keep tanking, at what point do you stop tanking? Do you have to keep tanking until you get a Lebron or Durant, or do you take a (prime) Kenyon Martin (also #1 pick) and think you've made it?


Also, at what point do you expect to actually sell tickets and survive as a business and a franchise throughout this process?

[Wizop]

A contender is a team who is so good, they only need to get lucky once to win a title. Lucky implies they're able to beat a team who might be a little bit better than them (or it's so close it's hard to say who is better, though in retrospect everyone will claim it was clear the winning team was better).

doesn't this definition mean there is only one favorite and only one other contender because everyone else has to beat at least two teams that have better records than they do? I think a much more natural definition would say that every team good enough to earn home court in the first round of the playoffs is a contender and that puts us in contention.

[jman2585]

I am still laughing at this notion that the thunder somehow did it right.. Seattle lost their team doing it so if that's the criteria then go screw yourself.

This is a ridiculous extrapolation. What Presti did would have worked exactly the same in Seattle. The team moving has no bearing on the decisions the GM made. Ridiculous.

Losing Harden is a reflection of how the new CBA works. Any small market GM works within those limitations, just as you will have to. It is not a criticism of Presti that his owner gave him a budget which would not allow keeping Harden.

So, after you keep tanking, at what point do you stop tanking? Do you have to keep tanking until you get a Lebron or Durant, or do you take a (prime) Kenyon Martin (also #1 pick) and think you've made it?

Also, at what point do you expect to actually sell tickets and survive as a business and a franchise throughout this process?

Well, if it takes 10 years you've definitely done it wrong. Presti took 2 years in the lotto, which is probably the ideal amount of time. One year only happens if you win a Tim Duncan draft (and already had assets, but were hurt), so it's not feasible for most teams. The Cavs have now missed the playoffs for their 3rd year. I'd expect them to make the playoffs next year, and move from first round fodder into contention within 2 years after that. I guess 3 years is probably the normal timeframe, with good management. Hopefully you'd have saved some cap space to try and snare guys like Presti tried to with Milsap (and the Cavs are doing that too), gotten a bunch of picks in exchange for helping teams get temporary financial relief during the rebuilding (which gave Presti and the Cavs a bunch of assets), etc.

Fans were pretty happy to support OKC through losing, they sold out pretty much every game. Cavs fans might not be as enthusiastic, but when the team is winning again I expect they'll come back, and that won't be too long. Plus the Cavs are still profitable on their current fanbase. The Magic fans are (almost surprisingly) supporting the rebuild, they'd sold alot of tickets.

doesn't this definition mean there is only one favorite and only one other contender because everyone else has to beat at least two teams that have better records than they do? I think a much more natural definition would say that every team good enough to earn home court in the first round of the playoffs is a contender and that puts us in contention.

Every year there are a handful of teams who can win a title. This definition covers them. I can't think of the last title winner who it didn't cover either to be honest. Home court is a bad definition of contention, because it doesn't reflect your realistic chances of winning a title. The Hawks as of today would have home court... are they really title contenders. Absurd. You're about the 8th best team in the NBA, that's not contention levels.

[Jake0890]

So, after you keep tanking, at what point do you stop tanking? Do you have to keep tanking until you get a Lebron or Durant, or do you take a (prime) Kenyon Martin (also #1 pick) and think you've made it?

Also, at what point do you expect to actually sell tickets and survive as a business and a franchise throughout this process?

Well, if it takes 10 years you've definitely done it wrong. Presti took 2 years in the lotto, which is probably the ideal amount of time. One year only happens if you win a Tim Duncan draft (and already had assets, but were hurt), so it's not feasible for most teams. The Cavs have now missed the playoffs for their 3rd year. I'd expect them to make the playoffs next year, and move from first round fodder into contention within 2 years after that. I guess 3 years is probably the normal timeframe, with good management. Hopefully you'd have saved some cap space to try and snare guys like Presti tried to with Milsap (and the Cavs are doing that too), gotten a bunch of picks in exchange for helping teams get temporary financial relief during the rebuilding (which gave Presti and the Cavs a bunch of assets), etc.

The Cavs will be less contenders for the title than us next year. 3 years of tanking may get you a low seed in the East, but that doesn't make them anywhere near as good as us.