RealGM

How many, if any, championships do you think the 90’s Pacers teams would have won by adding David Robinson? Assume that nothing else from history changes; the only change is swapping Rik Smits with David Robinson and it’s Robinson’s whole career across the 90’s.

1. 89-90’ Pacers (42-40) —> add 89-90’ David Robinson
2. 90-91’ Pacers (41-41) —> add 90-91’ David Robinson
3. 91-92’ Pacers (40-42) —> add 91-92’ David Robinson
4. 92-93’ Pacers (41-41) —> add 92-93’ David Robinson
5. 93-94’ Pacers (47-35) —> add 93-94’ David Robinson
6. 94-95’ Pacers (52-30) —> add 94-95’ David Robinson
7. 95-96’ Pacers (52-30) —> add 95-96’ David Robinson
8. 96-97’ Pacers (39-43) —> add 96-97’ David Robinson
9. 97-98’ Pacers (58-24) —> add 97-98’ David Robinson
10. 98-99’ Pacers (33-17)—> add 98-99’ David Robinson
11. 99-00’ Pacers (56-26) —> add 99-00’ David Robinson

Do the Pacers win the title any of these years?

You have to think the Mark Jackson years would be potent, with Robinson applying rim pressure and Miller running around all over the floor.

Might have their own pair of threepeats 1993-95 and 1998-2000.

When adding an alltime great to an already contending team, they'd win obviously. From 1993 onwards, not counitng Robinson missing 97, they likely win every year.

Most of them.

I think they have a great chance to win in 1994, 1995 and 1998. So I'd say around 3 titles.

Djoker wrote:I think they have a great chance to win in 1994, 1995 and 1998. So I'd say around 3 titles.

1999?
2000?

Colbinii wrote:

Djoker wrote:I think they have a great chance to win in 1994, 1995 and 1998. So I'd say around 3 titles.

1999?
2000?

There is a chance especially in 1999 but I still think the Spurs are better. Assuming of course they keep Robinson as well so there is two of them! In 2000, Robinson is already too old to make a difference IMO.

More than Jordan.