Retro Pacers

[8305]

One of my favorite Pacer teams of all time was the 1993-1994 team. Larry Brown's first year. No one was expecting much particularly after they traded Detlef Schrempf for Derrick McKey. Detlef was my favorite player. But that move was classic Larry Brown. You can only have so many finesse offensive players and after that you have to have dirty work guys.

I think Larry looked at that team and said Miller and Smits were his best and most compatable offensive players but since neither did much of anything else the rest of the guys had to be good defenders. Hence the Schrempf for McKey trade. Conveniently the Dale and Antonio Davis emerged. Haywood Workman did yeoman's work at the point. Sam Mitchel and Byron Scott we key rotational players. It was Reggie Miller and a bunch of role players playing in the EAstern Conference Finals.

The team we have now reminds me of the pre Larry Brown Pacers. Score alot and lose alot. Looks pretty good on paper but on the court something is missing. If you were going to try to convert to that old school approach here's how I see it.

Pieces that fit:
Danny Granger, he could be better than Miller, he can score in more ways and has a more complete game.
Roy Hibbert, he can be better than Smits
Tyler Hansbrough, pretty good skills match to Antonio Davis
Dahanty Jones, the Sam Mitchel role
MIke Dunleavy, the Byron Scott role, not much of a market for him anyway and I expect a nice recovery from him with an off season not dedicated to rehab and it being the last year of his contract.
Pieces that don't fit
Troy Murphy, a terrible complement to Hibbert
TJ Ford, neither mentally or physically tough
Jim O"Brien, too much of a change in philosophy
Questionable pieces:
Brandon Rush, the Derrick McKey role or too weak mentally?
Josh McRoberts, too much of a finesse guy?

First question, how hard would it be to convert this team in to something more closely resembling the 1993-1994 Pacers?

Second question, is the conversion a good idea? How competitive would a team constructed like that one be in today's NBA?

[mizzoupacers]

This is a fun thread idea!...I'll play. Except I'm going to look more closely at the changes the Pacers made from 1992-93 to 1993-94. The 92-93 team went .500 and lost in the first round of the playoffs; the 93-94 team was the first Pacers team (NBA era) to do any damage in the postseason, advancing to the East Conference finals. So you can make a good argument that 93-94 was the watershed year for the 1990s-era Pacers. Let's assume the goal is to figure out how the present team can reach a similar watershed.

The 92-93 Pacers were better than the 2009-10 Pacers...so the present team has a lot of work to do just to get to "square one" vis a vis the 90s Pacers. Let's compare the 92-93 and 09-10 rosters to see just how much work.

Starting lineups:
PG: Pooh Richardson vs. Ford/Watson. Comparable in that neither team had a very good starting pg.
Wing #1: Miller vs. Granger. Not an implausible comparison.
Wing #2: Schrempf vs. Rush. Schrempf was a good player, much better than Rush (at this stage of his career at least).
PF: Dale Davis vs. Murphy. Totally different games, but I think most of us would say DD was the better overall player, by a considerable margin.
C: Smits vs. Hibbert. Again, not an implausible comparison, although Smits was more of a vet, and hence more polished.
Bench: Vern Fleming, George McCloud, Sam Mitchell, LaSalle Thompson, Kenny Williams and Malik Sealy vs. today's guys. In both cases, not awful, but not remarkable either.
Coach: Bob Hill vs. Jim O'Brien. I honestly don't remember Hill very well. I'd guess there was not any huge qualitative difference between him and O'Brien.

Conclusion: For the 2010-11 Pacers to reach the level of the 1992-93 Pacers, the current team would probably need to upgrade at least two of the five starting positions this offseason. That's the biggest difference I see between the two teams.

Is it possible for the current team to upgrade two starting spots this offseason? (I'll try to give my answer in a later post)

OK, next step...how did the not-bad 92-93 Pacers become the dangerous 93-94 Pacers? The key personnel changes were:

Schrempf was traded for Derrick McKey.
Haywoode Workman was signed as a cheap free agent and replaced Richardson in the starting lineup.
The bench was bolstered by Byron Scott (signed as a fairly inexpensive free agent) and Antonio Davis (NBA rookie after several years developing in Europe).
Larry Brown replaced Hill as coach.

How do those moves compare to what might be possible between now and the start of the 2011-12 season? (Again, I'll give my answer later)

[HookShotHibbert]

Pieces that don't fit
Troy Murphy, a terrible complement to Hibbert
Questionable pieces:
Josh McRoberts, too much of a finesse guy?

Spot on post! I like the analysis except for two points:

I actually think Murphy is a great compliment to Hibbert. Hibbert is a weak/soft rebounder. Although I don't consider what Murphy does in terms of rebounding to be crashing the boards, he someone manages to gobble up a great deal of them. Hibbert is developing a nice (althought soft) inside game. With murphy camped out at the three point line, he stays out of Hibberts way!! Now if by compliment, you mean both guys games are on the 'softer' side and one of them should be more of a 'bruiser;, then I will tend to agree with you.

As far as McRoberts being a finesse guy, the only time he is a finesse guy is when he skies in over someones back for a 'rebound-throw down'. He must finesse over them to avoid the over the back foul call. Other wise I don't see much of what Josh does as finesse. I have never seem throw up a finger-roll or much less even a lay up.

OK, next step...how did the not-bad 92-93 Pacers become the dangerous 93-94 Pacers? The key personnel changes were:

Larry Brown replaced Hill as coach.

Lets start here!!! (Even if Bird says it isn't happening) Good bye Obrien....Heck I thought I even saw rumors that Brown might be on the move....any chance he wants to turn the Pacers around, again!!??

[Miller4ever]

^^Good call on the McRoberts being not finesse at all.

I'm going to throw back old-school style.

We had the 27-year-old Roger Brown, F/G wing scorer who could knock down a third of his threes, and had more than 7 boards and 4 assists a game. He was the team leader in points, at 23 a game. This is our Danny Granger.

The number 2 guy was center Mel Daniels, an imposing big man who had post moves and could swat shots. He was more intense on the boards, but Hibbert can match the offensive output of 18 points a game, plus Hibbert passes better.

Bob Netolicky, 20-10 man, with some range to his shot and a an FC who was a double-double threat every game. Troy is less good on defense and a little less offensively prolific, but these guys are both white, so...

John Barnhill was a 31-year-old vet who never put up flashy numbers and managed the game. Earl Watson.

Freddie Lewis is one tough act to follow, but at guard, he could pass, shoot, and defend. That could be Rush. Rush's shooting averages improved a lot and his 3-point percentage was sky-high.

I'd say we have a shot at becoming ABA champions with our current squad.

[8305]

Mizzou good point the 92 93 Pacers were better than we are today. Both Miller and Schrepf had made all star teams and we had played the Celtics very tough in the playoffs. Hopefully/Fortuantely we don't have to recreate 92 93 talent to get to the 93 94 model.

Hookshot I think when determining if players complement one another people tend to get hung up on their respective offensive games. The more important consideration in reality is defensively and from an athletic perspective. Rik Smits was a soft/Finesse guy. Dale and Antonio were well above average athlete banger types. Without those guys Smits weaknesses would have held the team back.

Another example Brad Miller was a great offensive complement to Jermaine O'Neal. But the team improved when Miller moved on and Jeff Foster took his position. Foster was a great defensive complement to O'Neal because Jermaine with Jeff next to him could always defend the weaker big allowing him to concentrate on blocking shots. Brad Miller always has to guard the slower big. That given would create matchups that compromised O'Neals greatest defensive strength.

Hibbert and Murphy are both slow. If either is going to play on a successful team they will have to be paired with more athletic players.

[mizzoupacers]

Larry Brown replaced Hill as coach.

Lets start here!!! (Even if Bird says it isn't happening) Good bye Obrien....Heck I thought I even saw rumors that Brown might be on the move....any chance he wants to turn the Pacers around, again!!??

I agree, the coaching change really jumps out at you. I hope the Pacers put a new coach in place at least by 2011. I doubt it will be Brown though.

OK, disregarding the coach for the moment, here's my stab at a 2011-12 team that compares with the 93-94 team:

Workman - A.J. Price? (seems within the realm of plausibility to me)
McKey - ???
Dale Davis - ???
Smits - Hibbert
Miller - Granger

Antonio Davis - Hansbrough?
Byron Scott - Rush? (seems within the realm of plausibility...barely...Scott was nearing the end of his career)
Sam Mitchell - Dahntay Jones

That shows you it's not going to be easy...even if Granger, Hibbert, Price, Hansbrough and Rush all live up to these comparisons (and most likely all of them won't), the Pacers would still need to acquire two more very good players to match the 93-94 team. The resources available to get those two guys probably will be late-lottery picks this summer and next, one halfway decent trading chip (Murphy), and/or the ability to pay perhaps one high-salary or two mid-salary free agents next summer.

[Miller4ever]

Hansbrough and McBob can be the new Davises.

McKey was a unique player, being able to defend two forward spots while shooting the 3. It's hard to find someone who's like him in the NBA today.

[8305]

The more I think about it the more I see an awful lot of Derek McKey in Brandon Rush. McKey could be pretty exaspeating at the offensive end of the floor. Wouldn't shoot and wasn't much of a finisher around the basket despite being 6' 9". Brandon is probably already a better scorer than Derek ever was. He is at times an exceptional defender but he will probably never be the lock down defender McKey was. All things considered Brandon in the McKey role isn't out of the question.

I also think Dunleavy could be a really good 6th man. He'll never have the swagger Byron Scott had but there's probably alot more left in his tank.

Tyler Hansbrough can't be both Dale and Antonio Davis but at pick 10 its not unreasoable to think a long, athletic, high energy, shot blocker can't be had. I'm thinking Udoh or Sanders.

That leaves point guard and if you're objective is a stylistic Heywood Workman clone I'm not sure Earl Watson isn't pretty close.

The really big change needed is philosophical. Its got to be about defense. You will never convince me Milwaulke has more talent than the team we've been defining. But their success is an example of what can happen when a team buys into what their coach is selling. Its pretty hard to see Jim O'Brien doing the necessary about face.

What I think is really interesting is our current roster is not as far away from a pretty successful model (the 93 94 Pacers) as it is from whatever O'Brien is angling for.

[Wizop]

This is a fun thread idea!...I'll play. Except I'm going to look more closely at the changes the Pacers made from 1992-93 to 1993-94. The 92-93 team went .500 and lost in the first round of the playoffs; the 93-94 team was the first Pacers team (NBA era) to do any damage in the postseason, advancing to the East Conference finals. So you can make a good argument that 93-94 was the watershed year for the 1990s-era Pacers.

and the difference can be stated in two words: Byron Scott and it wasn't nearly so much what he did on the floor although he hit a last second shot in the playoffs which was probably the turning point as what he did in the locker room. I like O'B as a person but if you had to name one change we could make to be more like the 93 team it would be to hire Byron to coach.

[drutripathi1]

lol... miller was one of the most clutch players to play the game.. granger??? this dude isn't clutch. yeah he's a scoring machine and can play pretty good D.. but he can'tt take over a game or make a significant impact on the game like miller used to.... the rest of the players comparisons are legit. miller never had help until the o'neal, artest, sjax days but he was too old and they were too young and we still made noise !!

but the players back in the day played better D, were COACHED BETTER & had this one guy called Reggie Miller.



#31 , if you can read this, come back as a coach, GM ball boy or something.. help the pacers out man !! we supported you now you support our fan hood !!!

[HookShotHibbert]

I'd say we have a shot at becoming ABA champions with our current squad.

Not sure if you are aware, but a Speedway, IN business owner is creating an ABA team for the upcoming season. (Yes the ABA is actually still in existence)....Maybe we could end up with first and second place in the ABA next year!!

Hookshot I think when determining if players complement one another people tend to get hung up on their respective offensive games. The more important consideration in reality is defensively and from an athletic perspective. Rik Smits was a soft/Finesse guy. Dale and Antonio were well above average athlete banger types. Without those guys Smits weaknesses would have held the team back.

8305--I see where you are coming from now with saying they don't compliment each other and I agree defensively they don't...Problem is, it has been so long since I have seen defense, I don't even think about it anymore!!

[mizzoupacers]

lol... miller was one of the most clutch players to play the game.. granger??? this dude isn't clutch. yeah he's a scoring machine and can play pretty good D.. but he can'tt take over a game or make a significant impact on the game like miller used to

I agree that it's a bit much to compare Granger with the Reggie Miller we knew by the end of the 90s, the one with all the playoff heroics under his belt. But this is a much earlier version of Reggie Miller we're talking about...93-94 was the first year he or anyone else with the Pacers had any postseason success.

I think Granger's stats are comparable with Miller's stats his first few seasons, and we won't know whether Granger is "clutch" or able to "take over a game" until he has a chance to play on some better teams.

[mizzoupacers]

and the difference can be stated in two words: Byron Scott and it wasn't nearly so much what he did on the floor although he hit a last second shot in the playoffs which was probably the turning point as what he did in the locker room. I like O'B as a person but if you had to name one change we could make to be more like the 93 team it would be to hire Byron to coach.

I think you're right about the Pacers lacking the right kind of veteran leader, especially a guy like Byron Scott who played a significant role on several championship teams and had probably seen it all. Someone with that kind of background who could still play a bit would be a very good pickup for the Pacers.

I don't agree with you on Scott as a coach, though. I just don't think coaches can have the same effect as a veteran on-court leader. Plus I think Byron is much better at shooting guard than as a coach.

[drutripathi1]

lol... miller was one of the most clutch players to play the game.. granger??? this dude isn't clutch. yeah he's a scoring machine and can play pretty good D.. but he can'tt take over a game or make a significant impact on the game like miller used to

I agree that it's a bit much to compare Granger with the Reggie Miller we knew by the end of the 90s, the one with all the playoff heroics under his belt. But this is a much earlier version of Reggie Miller we're talking about...93-94 was the first year he or anyone else with the Pacers had any postseason success.

I think Granger's stats are comparable with Miller's stats his first few seasons, and we won't know whether Granger is "clutch" or able to "take over a game" until he has a chance to play on some better teams.

you're right... at the same age.. they are VERY similar.... i think granger can go to the rim easier while miller had a better mid range jumper... but either ways.... i hope granger gets more help so he can prove that he CAN be a franchise player even though IMHO (in my humble opinion) i don't think he is.

[Miller4ever]

Mark Jackson is being courted by the Hornets. I say we get in on some of that action.

[RAW]

lol... miller was one of the most clutch players to play the game.. granger??? this dude isn't clutch. yeah he's a scoring machine and can play pretty good D.. but he can'tt take over a game or make a significant impact on the game like miller used to....

Miller wasn't "clutch" until Larry Brown came around. That Early 90's team is VERY similar to what we are now.


BTW: Healthy Dunleavy = Detlef? And did anyone see Detlef on this past episode of Parks and Rec? Amazing.