Isiah Thomas 1990 or Steve Nash 2006, who was better?

[Doctor MJ]

BBIQ, hardworking and being alpha male not in the boxscore ? any examples ?

Shane Battier would be one. There are some good articles interviewing Morey and the Rockets on the advanced stats and film study work they do that measure these things showing Battier's value.

Excellent call.

There's a broader point here though that needs to be made clear. bast is implying that the characteristics describes affect box score. Of course they do. The question is whether they're total impact exists in the box score - and of course it isn't.

[Doctor MJ]

You keep bringing up efficiency. Does efficiency translate into winning? How efficient is Nash defensively?

Does efficiency translate to winning? Typically personal efficiency translates to some degree of team efficiency - and team efficiency is EVERYTHING. Basketball is a possession game like baseball is an inning game. You win games by doing more per possession than your opponent does - and that is simply one way to describe efficiency.

How efficient is Nash defensively? I've said before that if you want to side against Nash for his defense, that's an understandable way of thinking. I'm trying to hammer in exactly how huge the difference is on offense because I doubt there's anyone out there who thinks "Well clearly Nash is far better on offense than Isiah, but I still side with Isiah".

Now how big of a deal is the defense? It's non-zero, definitely. It's a problem. However, it's important to keep some perspective about it's relative impact and importance with point guards. Various metrics out there have made clear that from point guard is the most important offensive position and the least important defensive position. Here's something concrete.

I mentioned before Ilardi's 6 year adjusted +/- analysis. So from '03-04 to '08-09, the best offensive adjusted +/- in the league was +8.84. Who did that? Nash of course. By comparison, the best defensive adjusted +/- in the league for point guards was +2.10. That was Baron Davis, and he ranked 57th in the league. More than 4X the impact on offense than on defense for the position in a game with only 5 players. It's an incredibly huge gap. In the modern game, it's quite clear that you should never pick one point guard over another because of his defense unless you've already established that their offense is really damn close.

Now here's something I will say. The current rules have exacerbated this tendency. It's become so hard to stop a great point guard on offense that analysts are increasingly admitting that you simply can't guard them one on one and expect acceptable results. Even as I object vehemently to the idea that Isiah played in a particularly tough defensive era, I will admit that at this point defense is particularly weak because of the rules. That's relevant in there conversation, even as it much be made clear that there's no rule that let's Nash do things his contemporaries cannot.

The bottom line is this: Magic, Bird, Isiah, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq = multiple rings. It was their teams. Did Magic, Bird, or Duncan win every Finals MVP their teams participated in and won? The answer is Worthy, Cornbread Maxwell, and Tony Parker. Though these people won Finals MVP, it was still Magic, Bird, and Duncan's team. Isiah was Finals MVP. Dumars was the Finals MVP the next year for the Pistons. It was still Isiah's team. Or are you saying the Celtics was Cornbread Maxwells team?


Nash has needs to at least lead a team to the Finals to be in the discussion. And if he doesn't win a championship, he will be like Barkley, Mailman, Ewing, Stockton, Dominique and those guys. Not a winner on the NBA level.

C'mon now, did I point to Dumars' finals MVP and say that alone called into question Isiah's place as a dominant star? No I did not. I also mentioned his MVP votes. As far as I can tell every single point you make here completely falls apart if you simply address both of the things I mentioned instead of one. That's some incredibly sloppy goal post moving my friend.

[hasslinghoff]

just in case someone might be interested in ilardi's 6 year analysis. here is the link from apbrmetrics, which also contains the spreadsheed:

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/vi ... php?t=2293

there really should be a sticky in statistical analysis for some of the more relevant stuff.

[Chicago76]

BBIQ, hardworking and being alpha male not in the boxscore ? any examples ?

Shane Battier would be one. There are some good articles interviewing Morey and the Rockets on the advanced stats and film study work they do that measure these things showing Battier's value.

Excellent call.

There's a broader point here though that needs to be made clear. bast is implying that the characteristics describes affect box score. Of course they do. The question is whether they're total impact exists in the box score - and of course it isn't.

I think additional clarification is probably needed (for me, at least). IMHO, all intangibles show up in the box score somewhere...maybe they are in the player’s line or in the team line, but they are somewhere. A player's basketball IQ, leadership, etc will get teammates where they need to be on the court and focused in positions where they can succeed more frequently than a leader with an avg. BBIQ or avg. work rate, etc. The measurables just might not be hugely significant over the course of a single game. It might only be an extra bucket or an extra defensive stop every game.

If they didn't show up anywhere in the team/opponent box score, then what's the use of talking about them?…oncourt intangibles at least. Offcourt intangibles are pretty dubious anyway. I could be the best teammate in the world and invite everyone over for a to my Mom’s house every week where she can fix us meatloaf and peach cobbler while we play pool and cards and gel as a team, but if it doesn’t show up in the team results, it’s not really a basketball intangible. It just means I’m a good guy and my Mom makes awesome meatloaf.

The oncourt intangibles (together with their intangibles) that anyone brings to a team should be quantified by on-off stats. In Thomas’s case the year after their title run, there wasn’t a huge difference between Detroit when he was healthy and when he wasn’t, so I don’t think there is a valid argument that he brought something extra to the table that wasn’t reflected in his direct score line.

What offcourt intangibles have a huge impact on a team? Maybe he could keep guys out of trouble in their personal lives to prevent issues from spilling over into a player’s oncourt performance. Maybe he could instruct guys when they were pulled out of the game and keep their confidence high so they didn’t curl up into a fetal position on the floor without the oncourt leadership of one Isiah Thomas. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating. Maybe he had some pointer or quip he could use to help a player every few games that translates into something. But what does that really mean? Maybe they win an extra game every couple of years?

[bastillon]

BBIQ, hardworking and being alpha male not in the boxscore ? any examples ?

Shane Battier would be one. There are some good articles interviewing Morey and the Rockets on the advanced stats and film study work they do that measure these things showing Battier's value.

Excellent call.

There's a broader point here though that needs to be made clear. bast is implying that the characteristics describes affect box score. Of course they do. The question is whether they're total impact exists in the box score - and of course it isn't.

yeah, my point exactly. don't you think that Battier's contributions can be summed up with a simple word of defense ? of course hardworking and bball IQ are causing his defense to be this good, but I'm more interested in the results rather than obvious reasons for this.

and I already pointed out to defense being one of the intangibles along with leadership (Garnett, Russell being the most obvious examples), drawing double teams (Nash comes to mind, takes full advantage of this ability), shot creation (Iverson - contributes offensively despite below average scoring efficiency because he creates shots which gives some space for the rest of his teammates), spacing (shooters in general), clutchness (Dirk incredibly underrated in that regard). I'd also add setting picks (Duncan, Garnett, Varejao recently), interior intimidation which is actually included in defense anyway (Dwight scaring the sh*t out of anyone inside 15 ft). there are more but I'm not sure if they're worth all that much.

the most important ones are defense and shot creation/double teams (which is connected) and they can explain vast majority of non-boxscore impact. I'm not really sold on bball IQ, hardworking and what-not. there are some exceptions like Shaq's intangibles creating interior lapses on his team and along with Bryant's ego causing their team to collapse... or Wilt on several occasions setting a really negative example...

my point is that people overuse intangibles, usually when they can't come up with own logical explanation. if I say that Nash has great intangibles I know exactly what that means: shot creation/double teams and taking advantage of them. Garnett ? defense, team first mentality-leadership, setting picks. Russell ? defense, outlet passing, coaching. Magic ? pretty much same as Nash + more mins.

I don't like using intangibles as some mythological concept that you can't verify or rationalize. there's always gotta be some reasoning behind any thesis.

[bastillon]

What offcourt intangibles have a huge impact on a team? Maybe he could keep guys out of trouble in their personal lives to prevent issues from spilling over into a player’s oncourt performance. Maybe he could instruct guys when they were pulled out of the game and keep their confidence high so they didn’t curl up into a fetal position on the floor without the oncourt leadership of one Isiah Thomas. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating. Maybe he had some pointer or quip he could use to help a player every few games that translates into something. But what does that really mean? Maybe they win an extra game every couple of years?

or maybe someone just needed to justify his all-time rating w/ something other than rings ? couldn't do that with a boxscore or with/without in games so you've gotta make something up. intangibles, the way they're often being used on this board, fill that role perfectly.

[Doctor MJ]

I think additional clarification is probably needed (for me, at least). IMHO, all intangibles show up in the box score somewhere...maybe they are in the player’s line or in the team line, but they are somewhere. A player's basketball IQ, leadership, etc will get teammates where they need to be on the court and focused in positions where they can succeed more frequently than a leader with an avg. BBIQ or avg. work rate, etc. The measurables just might not be hugely significant over the course of a single game. It might only be an extra bucket or an extra defensive stop every game.

If they didn't show up anywhere in the team/opponent box score, then what's the use of talking about them?…oncourt intangibles at least. Offcourt intangibles are pretty dubious anyway. I could be the best teammate in the world and invite everyone over for a to my Mom’s house every week where she can fix us meatloaf and peach cobbler while we play pool and cards and gel as a team, but if it doesn’t show up in the team results, it’s not really a basketball intangible. It just means I’m a good guy and my Mom makes awesome meatloaf.

The oncourt intangibles (together with their intangibles) that anyone brings to a team should be quantified by on-off stats. In Thomas’s case the year after their title run, there wasn’t a huge difference between Detroit when he was healthy and when he wasn’t, so I don’t think there is a valid argument that he brought something extra to the table that wasn’t reflected in his direct score line.

What offcourt intangibles have a huge impact on a team? Maybe he could keep guys out of trouble in their personal lives to prevent issues from spilling over into a player’s oncourt performance. Maybe he could instruct guys when they were pulled out of the game and keep their confidence high so they didn’t curl up into a fetal position on the floor without the oncourt leadership of one Isiah Thomas. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating. Maybe he had some pointer or quip he could use to help a player every few games that translates into something. But what does that really mean? Maybe they win an extra game every couple of years?

Well first let me clarify: When I refer to "box score stats" in player evaluation, I'm talking about his line only. I consider things that influence the actual final score, that aren't in a players stat line to be the very essence of what an intangible is. Just because it can be counted in +/- doesn't make it tangible, because there's no inherent causality in the +/- stat.

I would also say that what you're calling "off court intangibles" still influence the box score, so I wouldn't even consider them to be separate - though I would say that those are things that even +/- can't measure because.

You ask about the scale of impact for off court intangibles, to me the baseline there is the impact you think a coach has. If you think the most a coach can do is add a few wins a year, then expect a player to have even less than that. I don't buy that, and I think a lot of the impact a coach can have is in areas a player can have. We've all seen teams overachieve and underachieve after all.

[Doctor MJ]

yeah, my point exactly. don't you think that Battier's contributions can be summed up with a simple word of defense ? of course hardworking and bball IQ are causing his defense to be this good, but I'm more interested in the results rather than obvious reasons for this.

and I already pointed out to defense being one of the intangibles along with leadership (Garnett, Russell being the most obvious examples), drawing double teams (Nash comes to mind, takes full advantage of this ability), shot creation (Iverson - contributes offensively despite below average scoring efficiency because he creates shots which gives some space for the rest of his teammates), spacing (shooters in general), clutchness (Dirk incredibly underrated in that regard). I'd also add setting picks (Duncan, Garnett, Varejao recently), interior intimidation which is actually included in defense anyway (Dwight scaring the sh*t out of anyone inside 15 ft). there are more but I'm not sure if they're worth all that much.

the most important ones are defense and shot creation/double teams (which is connected) and they can explain vast majority of non-boxscore impact. I'm not really sold on bball IQ, hardworking and what-not. there are some exceptions like Shaq's intangibles creating interior lapses on his team and along with Bryant's ego causing their team to collapse... or Wilt on several occasions setting a really negative example...

my point is that people overuse intangibles, usually when they can't come up with own logical explanation. if I say that Nash has great intangibles I know exactly what that means: shot creation/double teams and taking advantage of them. Garnett ? defense, team first mentality-leadership, setting picks. Russell ? defense, outlet passing, coaching. Magic ? pretty much same as Nash + more mins.

I don't like using intangibles as some mythological concept that you can't verify or rationalize. there's always gotta be some reasoning behind any thesis.

I think you're too coarse with your classification system. "Defense" isn't one intangible to me, it's half of the entire game to be broken into many parts. Intangibles are a subset of the many talents and skills that help a player contribute to a basketball team.

You don't like dealing with intangibles as something you can't verify/rationalize? Not totally sure what you mean there, but have you ever looked up the definition of "intangible"? Us calling stuff "intangible" is an admission that we aren't able to quantify it like we'd like. With that said, I don't see intangibles as anything mystic - I just think that if we're talking about the components of what make a guy good, breaking down those components into actual atoms is the clear way to go.

[bastillon]

to me intangibles = non boxscore impact. +/- covers them though.

[Laimbeer]

example...

my point is that people overuse intangibles, usually when they can't come up with own logical explanation. if I say that Nash has great intangibles I know exactly what that means: shot creation/double teams and taking advantage of them. Garnett ? defense, team first mentality-leadership, setting picks. Russell ? defense, outlet passing, coaching. Magic ? pretty much same as Nash + more mins.

I don't like using intangibles as some mythological concept that you can't verify or rationalize. there's always gotta be some reasoning behind any thesis.

If they're tangible, as you would like them to be, they aren't intangibles. Most basketball people agree intangibles are very real, value players have that aren't in box scores. Leadership, will, this stuff all gets acknowledged by coaches, other players, media, etc.

I don't think Russell, for example, can have all of his value translated through his statistics. If uys play better D or are more unslefish because of him, how do you quantify how much credit he gets for their improved play? When guys like Isiah or Duncan set the tone for their team through example - everybody here puts team first, listens to the coach, and busts their sas on D, and if I'm a star doing that stuff you dman well better, that matters.

You mentioned in another thread what a mindless chucker Vernon Maxwell was. That wouldn't have flown on Isiah's Pistons, Bird's Celtics, Duncan's Spurs, etc. I know you like Dream, he was great, but he didn't display that kind of leadership. It may have been a cultural thing for him. Erving and Chamberlain didn't display it either, or Kareem or Shaq.

It's part, not all. of a player's greatness, and it's not as easy to quantify as creating shots, playing D. etc. Deke played great D, he didn't have great intangibles.

[Doctor MJ]

to me intangibles = non boxscore impact. +/- covers them though.

+/- assumes a player's impact only happens during the game while he's on the court. If a star mentors his backup, and as a result the backup does better when he plays, then +/- will tell you that star got worse, when in reality he made the team better. There're all sorts of little things like this.

[Chicago76]

Well first let me clarify: When I refer to "box score stats" in player evaluation, I'm talking about his line only. I consider things that influence the actual final score, that aren't in a players stat line to be the very essence of what an intangible is. Just because it can be counted in +/- doesn't make it tangible, because there's no inherent causality in the +/- stat.

I would also say that what you're calling "off court intangibles" still influence the box score, so I wouldn't even consider them to be separate - though I would say that those are things that even +/- can't measure because.

You ask about the scale of impact for off court intangibles, to me the baseline there is the impact you think a coach has. If you think the most a coach can do is add a few wins a year, then expect a player to have even less than that. I don't buy that, and I think a lot of the impact a coach can have is in areas a player can have. We've all seen teams overachieve and underachieve after all.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Tangibles = individual box score stats that can be directly measured that contribute/detract to/from team success. Examples: FGM, shooting efficiency, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, etc.

Oncourt intangibles = things a player does that can not be directly measured that still contribute/detract to/from team success. These can be picked up in +/-. Examples: ballhandling to relieve pressure, the pass that leads to the assist, shooting ability that might stretch the defense to allow other players to get scoring opportunities even if the player doesn't make the assist, man defense and team defense beyond steals and blocks, ability to change the tempo of the game as needed.

Offcourt intangibles = things someone (player, coach, etc.) does that allows a player or team to perform better. Theoretically, these are still in the +/- as well. This is a slippery psychological and philosophical slope you're going down. Examples:

-A dominant player setting the tone for a team.
-A head coach calling a play and making personnel decisions.
-An assistant working with a player on one aspect of his game.
-A visionary GM that assembles a well constructed team.
-An agent.
-A team psychologist helping someone through issues.
-A wife/girlfriend keeping a player out of trouble.
-The birth of a player's first child, who encourages him to mature and focus.
-A substance abuse counselor who gets a player on the right track. Coincidentally, what's the +/- or intangible value of Chris Mullin or Bernard King's substance abuse counselors?
-A childhood mentor who is a second father for the player.
-The player's parents, siblings, friends.
-Etc.

All of these people (and many more) are theoretically imbedded in a player's +/- too, but they can't actively help that player in the flow of a game. For a coach during a timeout or calling a play, yes to some extent. We're all the collection of our experiences and people who have been in our lives at various points in time, but ultimately it is up to the player and his oncourt teammates when they step on the court, and it's up to each of us when we go to work. My success at work depends upon the colleagues I'm working with on a given project. I'm not about to say $XX,XXX of my work intangibles are attributed to my HS teacher or parent or guy in another department I have lunch with once a week who mentors me or even the CEO who orchestrates the company vision. This is really digging in the weeds here.

[Doctor MJ]

Cool conversation. I'd agree we're getting somewhere.

Re: Slippery slope. I don't think so, and here's why: When I consider acquiring a player, I consider EVERYTHING about that guy. If that guy is a locker room cancer, I want to know. If he's the second coming of Churchill, I want to know. And it's absolutely going to affect how much I'll pay him.

You see a problem judging a player's impact when in blends in with what non-players do. I don't. I see a problem in cutting off any part of that player's impact on the scoreboard when evaluating him.

Now though, in the end you start getting into the division of credit, and this is an excellent point that has to be dealt with in a reasonable way. You're right that the guys actually doing the grunt work need to get their credit - but I think we can both agree that that doesn't mean we ignore the fact that the boss is a factor in the environment. In the end, I see this as multiplication as opposed to addition. You recognize both people's part in the success - that if without both of them, the success wouldn't exist.

Last, practically, quantifying this type of impact is of course very difficult. I mean, when we talk about intangibles actually decreasing +/-, when +/- is already on the fringe of objectivity, we know we're in some trouble. Nonetheless, recognition of these issues is necessary.

[hasslinghoff]

i like how there is some clarification on the subject and i especially like this example:

to me intangibles = non boxscore impact. +/- covers them though.

+/- assumes a player's impact only happens during the game while he's on the court. If a star mentors his backup, and as a result the backup does better when he plays, then +/- will tell you that star got worse, when in reality he made the team better. There're all sorts of little things like this.

i think it's pretty fundamental in that it shows the limitations of most metrics and how there are things well beyond any measure stick. a lot of teams aquire veterans solely for their off-court value. while they might produce a negative on court, they still improve their team by sharing experience and teaching youngsters. often their sheer presence on the bench effects the team. it's like some boy trying harder, because his parents are watching.

edit: what mostly leaves a bad aftertaste are people mentioning "intangibles", because they run out of actual arguments and are not capable of backing up their opinion with logical reasoning.

[Brenice]

The bottom line is this: Magic, Bird, Isiah, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq = multiple rings. It was their teams. Did Magic, Bird, or Duncan win every Finals MVP their teams participated in and won? The answer is Worthy, Cornbread Maxwell, and Tony Parker. Though these people won Finals MVP, it was still Magic, Bird, and Duncan's team. Isiah was Finals MVP. Dumars was the Finals MVP the next year for the Pistons. It was still Isiah's team. Or are you saying the Celtics was Cornbread Maxwells team?


Nash has needs to at least lead a team to the Finals to be in the discussion. And if he doesn't win a championship, he will be like Barkley, Mailman, Ewing, Stockton, Dominique and those guys. Not a winner on the NBA level.

C'mon now, did I point to Dumars' finals MVP and say that alone called into question Isiah's place as a dominant star? No I did not. I also mentioned his MVP votes. As far as I can tell every single point you make here completely falls apart if you simply address both of the things I mentioned instead of one. That's some incredibly sloppy goal post moving my friend.

See below. That is what you are implying, twist it like you usually do.


[quote="Doctor MJ"][Isn't it amazing that with it being so clear that it was Isiah's team, Dumars got as many MVP votes as Isiah in both their title years, and Dumars won as many Finals MVPs as Isiah did? I'm stating this sincerely. I'm not arguing that people typically thought Dumars was the man. Just amazing that in spite of Isiah being the alpha who couldn't get any separation on those fronts.

[Chicago76]

Cool conversation. I'd agree we're getting somewhere.

Re: Slippery slope. I don't think so, and here's why: When I consider acquiring a player, I consider EVERYTHING about that guy. If that guy is a locker room cancer, I want to know. If he's the second coming of Churchill, I want to know. And it's absolutely going to affect how much I'll pay him.

You see a problem judging a player's impact when in blends in with what non-players do. I don't. I see a problem in cutting off any part of that player's impact on the scoreboard when evaluating him.

Now though, in the end you start getting into the division of credit, and this is an excellent point that has to be dealt with in a reasonable way. You're right that the guys actually doing the grunt work need to get their credit - but I think we can both agree that that doesn't mean we ignore the fact that the boss is a factor in the environment. In the end, I see this as multiplication as opposed to addition. You recognize both people's part in the success - that if without both of them, the success wouldn't exist.

I 100% agree with you on considering a player's character and what he brings to the environment when deciding whether or not to sign him. For some background, if anyone has felt the effect of the intangibles from a fan perspective you describe on this board it is me. I grew up in Indianapolis as a Pacers fan. I remember my family working the phones during the "Save the Pacers" telethon and living through the Nassi ownership years. When Simon bought the team, it took a good ten years to go from a Clipperesque laughingstock level to at least an interesting flash in the pan in 1994. Then another year or two to prominence...then another couple of years to being the Bulls biggest playoff threat ever...losing out on what looked like our biggest chance to take a title in the lockout year...then making the finals in a more competitive series than most remember. After that we maintained respectability for a few years of rebuilding around Miller and youth before what looked to be our breakout season. And then all hell broke loose in Detroit. We lost probably our biggest title chance in one night...the team was dismantled...we got bad quickly...attendance dwindled...one Simon brother is no dead while the other is getting up there in years...the next generation seems more interested in other investments...and we (meaning my hometown) may not have a team when that generation takes over.

My gut tells me that poor chemistry guys do more damage than good chemistry/intangible guys contribute. It takes time to build a winning culture. The Pacers were the closest thing to the Celtics of the ABA, but that went south in about 2-3 years. Then it took over 15 years to rebuild the brand only to lose it in the dying seconds of mop up time.

There is no doubt in my mind that a veteran presence can help a team--even if the veteran sits at the end of the bench and isn't part of the rotation. That help can come in one of two primary ways:
-teaching younger guys the fundamentals, which should ultimately show up in the younger guys' stat line (so off-court intangibles are already bleeding into on-court tangibles)
-helping the team mentally, which may not show up in any single player's stat line, but will show up somehow in the final score (so off-court intangibles are also bleeding into on-court intangibles).

A culture of winning and professionalism is important, but assigning credit becomes a huge issue. What would Dennis Rodman be if he wasn't around Thomas or Mahorn but instead played for Sacramento? What would Pippen have been if he didn't play with Jordan? What would Jordan have been if he didn't play for Phil Jackson but instead Rick Adelman? Or if he didn't play for Dean Smith in college? How much credit do we give an offcourt guy for what a player does on the court? If someone teaches players the secrets of a winning attitude, at what point does that become the property of the player being taught? If the mentor leaves and the core of the team is still intact and relatively young, the team would probably continue on the same path. This is where I see the problem of blending off-court vs. on-court.

I don't have a big problem with +/- because there are a million subtle things that happen on the court in a game that can't be captured anywhere in the box score, but do have an impact on the final score. And they can be measured at least indirectly. We can at least indirectly measure Shane Battier's presence even if his stat line reads 3 pts, 4 rebounds, 4 assists. In the end, my impression is that people like to cite these off-court intangibles when comparing their favorite players vs. another good player because there is nothing else to fall back on. As if that other good player couldn't possibly bring the same level of professionalism, attitude, and mentorship to his team.

I do have an idea on how to at least test for some of these intangibles. Not the ones that show up in the final score for any single game, but in the ability of a team to maintain poise and win more than their share of games. I'm going to do that in the stats forum when I have a bit of time to hash things out. It will be a look at Auerbach and Russell's impact on the Celtics, Jordan/Bird/Magic, some of the supposed not so great chemistry guys like Wilkins, Chamberlain, and Barry.

[Doctor MJ]

I'd probably agree with you that negative intangibles can be more powerful than positives. The Detroit brawl I'm sure was brutal for the tea. Though my memory of that season after the brawl, was Reggie Miller leading a plucky bunch to end up with a winning record, pulling an upset in the playoffs, and then losing to Detroit in a series that wasn't really any less competitive than their series the year before.

I look forward to your intangible testing thread on the stat board.

[Warspite]

As a Pistons fan the Nets led by Kidd were a bigger challenge than the Pacers because we didnt see the intangibles in teh Pacers. They had talent but they still lacked that intangible that made you worry. Sheed predicted a win in Indiana for that same reason. The Pacers were good but they werent going to beat you. They waited for you to beat yourself.

The 05 Pacers might have been better before the brawl and watching that game I had a sinking feeling that I was watching something I had seen in 1991 when the Bulls matured and beat the Pistons. Then in a min Artest crossed the line and the new Bad Boys simply became bad boys.

[NO-KG-AI]

As a Pistons fan the Nets led by Kidd were a bigger challenge than the Pacers because we didnt see the intangibles in teh Pacers. They had talent but they still lacked that intangible that made you worry. Sheed predicted a win in Indiana for that same reason. The Pacers were good but they werent going to beat you. They waited for you to beat yourself.

The 05 Pacers might have been better before the brawl and watching that game I had a sinking feeling that I was watching something I had seen in 1991 when the Bulls matured and beat the Pistons. Then in a min Artest crossed the line and the new Bad Boys simply became bad boys.

I had that same feeling as well. I thought that Indiana team was taking that step forward.