Pacers Rebuild

[jman2585]

I noticed a thread on the General Board about the Pacers rebuild model, and thought I'd post my thoughts here for discussion and feedback.

I disagree with a lot of the things said in this thread, including the central premise; that what the Pacers have done is a model to be emulated by other teams.

Some Context- Just how good is the Pacers team?
I hate to begin this post on a negative note, but some of the comparisons of this Pacers team to the Detroit team of 2004 (who I’ll get to later) are very unfortunate ones. The 2004 Pistons regular season record is clearly misleading, because as people have noted, they only obtained Rasheed Wallace late in the season, then they went on a tear to close the season. Without Sheed, they were not title contenders. With Rasheed the Pistons in 2004 has a team of 3 guys who were more or less franchise type players. Billups definitely was by 2004, Ben Wallace was a defensive franchise player like Mutumbo in 2004, and Sheed could be that guy when he wanted to be… which wasn’t all the time, and he came with some bad habits, but he was basically a star. He was the best player on a Blazers team who in 2000 were 1 bad quarter away from eliminating the Lakers, and almost assuredly winning the title (back then, the real finals was played in the Western Conference Finals). In addition to those 3 guys, they had an all-star (Rip) and a really good glue guy who was an above average starter (Prince). The Pistons also has 6th man of the year Corliss Williamson, a young Okur and some other serviceable guys coming off the bench like Elden Campbell. Looking at the Pacers, I find it hard to see the comparison. Roy Hibbert getting compared to Ben Wallace is a joke, even if he is one of the better defensive 5’s in the NBA, he’s no Ben Wallace. The Pacers best guy and only all-star is no a franchise player like Billups was, the current version of David West is not as good as Sheed was in 2004, and the Pistons are more talented everywhere else too. Granger isn’t going to help them much. He replicates what George does, and will just take touches from West and George, and is bad as an offensive scorer (which is unfortunate, since that’s his job). He was a pretend all-star, not a real one like Rip. Granger is also coming back from an injury, and may not be the same again. There’s a reason the Pacers have often looked at trading Granger. He’s just not that good.

Now of course, the Pacers are a good team, and fans have every right to be happy about their team. Sometimes the best thing for a franchise is to build the fanbase by having a respectable and competitive team, and the Pacers are certainly that. Recovering from the Brawl and aftermath, I’d be happy with the current team too. But the portrayal of the Pacers as “one guy away” like the Pistons is wrong, unless that guy is someone like Chris Paul or Tony Parker or Dwayne Wade. Does anyone see a way for the Pacers to get anyone like that? I sure don’t. The Pacers are not a real contender, they put up a fight against a Heat team without their only serviceable big man. That Heat team now has Ray Allen added to it, along with more depth (useful bench bigs like Chris Anderson for instance, who has been very solid for them), and more experience playing together (which was the only thing holding the Heat back in 2011, where they also almost won with a more flawed team). The Pacers right now are probably the 7th or 8th best team in the NBA (which is in line with their SRS too), which is good of course, but should be put into context. People have already pointed out the Pacers record broken down against good/bad teams, etc, and in the West the Pacers would be assured of a 1st round exit. Nor is the NBA about “match ups” when you’re playing true contenders. If it was the Heat would have lost to multiple teams last year with whom they had bad match ups (including the Thunder). Match ups are nice for first round upsets, like the 2007 Warriors, but the real contenders don’t lose because of frickin match ups. As some posters like Trevelyan pointed out, better teams like the 2011 Bulls and 2011 and 2012 Celtics failed against worse Heat teams than the current one, in spite of fans insisting that they would win with their “good defence” or “great match ups” (and in 2012, in spite of the Heat missing their only good big man). I literally don’t see how you could make a case that the 2013 Pacers are a similarly good team to the 2011 Bulls for instance, who had everything the Pacers had going for them but better, on paper and on the court, which is why they performed much better.

So that’s some important context, the only reason their fans can talk about an ECF’s appearance is because the East is much weaker than the West, so already their “model” is an issue for half the teams in the NBA (who don’t play in the East). Until a few games ago, the Pacers were virtually tied with the Nets and Rose-less Bulls, and I assume nobody is seriously holding those teams up as a model for how to build a contender. Not that I disagree with those teams going in the direction they’re going… the Bulls are winning for their fans in the hope Rose comes back and things change (they won’t, but they’ll be good enough to sell it, and the owners will make a fortune as usual in the process), and the Nets need to have a team which is good now to win over the NY fanbase, and have an owner who doesn’t give a damn about the luxury tax (and it’s working, they team is building a great fan base- ticket sales are up over 20% despite having the most expensive tickets in the NBA, and they figure to make a profit even with the crazy spending, while long term their equity and revenue will continue to increase like crazy). That direction makes sense for those teams, just as your direction makes some sense for yours, but they are not “models” to be emulated (see later section on this). It’s also strange that you are unwilling to cheer for the Nets and Bulls, who are also playing to “win now” instead of “tanking” (which is supposedly bad). Shouldn’t the fans of the Nets and Bulls be thrilled ownership didn’t tank, and instead tried to win as much as possible under your logic? After all, it’s not like the fans pay the luxury tax bills of these teams, so how much they’re spending is irrelevant.

Nor is the Pacers situation likely to change for the better. David West is a free agent this offseason, and some team like the Mavs who want to win now is sure to overpay for him, which means you’re potentially going to lose him. Even if you don’t, West is turning 33… he’s clearly going to get worse sooner rather than later, and the Pacers can’t easily find a replacement for a guy like that. Granger has been getting worse for years now, and is likely to continue to do so once he’s on the wrong side of 30, he’s a guy who relies more on athleticism than the average fan thinks. George’s improvement has been nice, but there’s no indication he’s going to be a star. There are many fundamental things about his game that he has shown no real improvement with, and very few players ever do at this juncture. He can be an all-star for you, but that’s about it. George Hill is what he is, a guy who is ideally a 6th man on a contender, and after seeing Hibbert regress this year (though continue to play great D) I hope no Pacer fans are realistically looking at Hibbert as their savior. Hibbert is a player almost every team would love to have, but he was very lucky to make his only all-star team, it was mainly owing to injuries to guys like Horford and Bogut (who was good back then). The new front court all-star vote system basically ends Hibbert’s prospects of ever making an all-star team again. Nobody else on the Pacers is particularly significant (and I’m including Lance). That’s a team with 1 all-star (but who is not really a franchise player) and 1 good (but not really all-star calibre) defensive big as their 2 best players. How many teams built like that have contended for a title? Zero. Likewise, talk of how the Pacers are better “from 4-10” is a distraction. The Kings were better than the Lakers from 3-12 in 2002, but the Lakers were the better team. Depth is nice, but the NBA is a star game, and nobody should be trying to argue they’re better than a top heavy team like the Heat by looking at who has the better 6th man.

Next year it’s easy to see the teams who will have improved (or in the Lakers case, sorted their S#@$ out) and gotten better than the Pacers, but it’s doubtful the Pacers will improve much. The Bulls likely get Rose back, and move ahead of the Pacers. The Lakers/Houston get Dwight healthy, they’re now better than the Pacers. The same sorts of teams are all likely to be better than the Pacers too (Heat, Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Memphis, etc), and the Pacers at best will be right there with teams like NY, Denver, etc. As I said, this is not a bad place to be. Sometimes teams do better to win a little in the short term, see if they can luck out, and build a winning culture. I’m a fan of what the Hawks have been doing in recent years too, since even if they weren’t contending for a title, they were building their credibility back with the fans, and hopefully rebuilding the fanbase after many disastrous years.

What is the “Pacers Model”, and how realistic is it to “emulate”
Another thing about the Pacers “model” is that it has almost no defining characteristics which teams can copy. I have heard in depth explanations of what Moreyball consists of, or the Spurs/Thunder model, “being the Knicks/Lakers”, or building through the draft in general. But the Pacers model isn’t a model at all, it is defined only by a negative; “don’t tank”. That’s not a model. There was no particular plan in drafting Granger or Hibbert or George. The front office thought those guys were the best available, they were more or less right, so they drafted them. Every front office is trying to do that already, they don’t need to look to the Pacers to gain this wisdom. Some teams could do a better job of it of course, and get better scouts (though I’d peg the Spurs and Thunder as having the best scouts to be honest, and generally work with far worse picks), but there is nothing unique to the Pacers in trying to do this. The Pacers weren’t looking at advanced stats and trying to pick based on a method everyone else was overlooking like in Moneyball, they just thought “he looks like the best guy for this pick”.

Then let’s imagine every team did have scouts equal to the Spurs or Thunder (or Pacers), heck let’s imagine that every front office was equally good. 16 teams still make the playoffs, and 14 don’t. That doesn’t mean the 14 who didn’t were bad, we just established they were all equal… but there is an unequal number of talented players, and there are unequal conditions in which teams play. There is only 1 Lebron James. There are only 4 teams in NY or LA. There are richer teams and poorer teams. So even if every front office was equal, some will still be “losers” by your definition, which is illogical. Most of the variables, front offices can’t control. They can’t control what city they’re in, whether they have a rich ownership or attractive location, etc. What they can control is what pick they have. Let’s go back to the hypothetical example of every team having “the best” front office possible. You know by definition you cannot “steal” a player by being smarter than the other team, because everyone is equally smart… what you can do is lose a meaningless game at the end of the season, to make sure you pick one spot sooner, and are now able to increase the chances you get the player you want. That’s usually a smart move, not a dumb one. Being a good GM is all about seeing ahead of the curve, but it’s also about knowing how to follow a strategy, and part of that strategy is to maximise your advantages over your opponents (other teams). A higher pick helps do that, and if your team lacks the talent to make the playoffs anyway (because remember, finite talent in the NBA), it’s probably sensible to work towards that strategy, rather than spend a lot of money trying to move from being “bad” to “mediocre”.

The draft lottery is also the place where you get superstars in the NBA, and generally that’s how all recent champions (or top contenders) have been built. The Spurs got Duncan through the lottery, the Mavs got Dirk in the lottery (along with some of the other assets that they used to build the team over the years, which in turn were moved for other assets), the Thunder got their guys in the lottery, the Celtics got Pierce in the lottery, acquired Ray Allen with a lotto pick, and got KG for a package which included young guys (and a guy drafted 14th, so effectively the lottery). The Heat got Wade from the Lottery, and acquired Shaq for a package that included a lottery pick asset. The Bulls got Rose, Deng, Noah, etc, from the lottery, not to mention other assets they used to enhance the team. The Cavs and Magic, who each made the finals once and had some great runs, got their stars from the lottery. If the front offices of the Cavs and Magic hadn’t been so bad, those teams would have probably won titles too. Sure, the Heat were lucky to get Lebron and Bosh, but few teams can plan for that (and when they do, they can often miss out like the Spurs in 2003, or the Mavs recently did). The only real examples of champions (or almost champions) who built teams without the draft lottery are the Lakers and the Pistons. The Lakers had 2 stars force their way there in a way that would not be possible today. In today’s game Kobe’s bluff would have been called, and a higher team would have drafted him and held on to him, and more scouts would have seen him owing to the increased amount of high school scouting that exists in the modern NBA. Shaq would have been stuck on a proper rookie contract in today’s game, and would have been stuck with the Magic for 7-8 years, just like Lebron and Dwight were. Nor can most teams hope that an MVP calibre guy will force his way to their team because he wants to make movies and rap albums.

That leaves the Pistons, a team constructed on a series of unreplicatable flukes. A General Manager who proposes to construct a team “like the Pistons did” should be fired. It’s almost impossible. You’re relying on other teams totally mismanaging potential stars, nobody else picking up on it, and then the team giving them away to you because they are foolish (i.e. Ben Wallace and Billups), giving all-stars away to you for nothing (Sheed), trading you a young all-star for an aging has been for dumb reasons (Rip), and you lucking into the perfect guy to complement these players late in the 1st round. No GM can “plan” those circumstances, and we’ve seen that in recent years, where Joe Dumars has unsuccessfully tried to repeat his fluke model to no avail (because lightning rarely strikes the same place twice).

What are the alternative models like?
I’m going to leave aside Moreyball as requiring a thread of its own (though I think Morey is highly overrated), and focus on the alternative of the draft lottery, since most teams can’t plan on being a big market like LA or Miami, and since most other touted models are either bad (Isiah Thomas Knicks for instance), or not mutually exclusive (using advanced stats more). A common error is that fans point to some badly managed team, like say the Wolves or Kings, and say “see, the lotto doesn’t work”. That is to misunderstand the situation. No “model” is a guarantee of success, you still have to implement that model well. A team trying to use the (non) ‘Model’ of the Pacers who did it badly would suck too. Any model fails when done badly, and no model protects you from an incompetent front office. However one model greatly increases your chances of success, especially if you are a small market, and that’s building through the draft lottery. As I noted above, it’s how pretty much every recent champion or recent powerhouse was built (even if they used some of those lotto picks as assets to get veterans to round out the team). Guys you draft are also stuck with you for 7-8 years whether they like it or not, so you don’t have to worry about your location.

Moreover, a model using the draft lottery doesn’t necessarily mean you have to “lose on purpose”. The guys on the court will be trying to win as hard as they can if you do it right. Just avoid veterans, and let the young guys grow together, so the improvement comes from within (like we saw on the Thunder. They did badly with Durant early on, and got better every single year). There are many examples of successful “build through the draft” contenders, but virtually no teams who go from treadmill to contender without good lottery picks. Heck, the Pacers best guy is from the lottery, albeit the #10 pick. The Pacers aren’t an example either, since they’re not a contender, and there are almost no others examples in recent history. Look at the top 5 teams in the NBA right now, they all got to where they were by knowing when to “tank” a season or more. The Spurs, Heat, Thunder, Clippers and Memphis all got to where they are through the lottery. There was of course very good management in addition to the lottery (especially for the Spurs and Thunder), but they still needed the lottery to do it. If those teams had tried to add veterans and win a little more in key seasons they probably wouldn’t be where they are today. Better yet, even if a team is terribly managed (like the Paxson Cavs, or the Wolves, or the Magic) the lotto offers fans a way to succeed in spite of bad management. Eventually even the worst managed team (like the Wolves, Warriors or Clippers) can turn it around with some luck, this year the Wolves would probably have made the playoffs if not for all the injuries, and should be a good chance next year, and this is in spite of their terrible management. In the East they’d certainly make it. The Warriors decision to tank a little last year was crucial in netting them a huge building block going forward (whereas one spot lower would have left them with a much worse pick this year in a crappy draft).

Teams should not (and are not) trying to implement the “Pacer model” (which has little to show for it at this point). They are trying to implement the Spurs model, which is why so many people from the Spurs front office get hired by teams who want to improve their management. And it seems to work quite well. The Thunder got some of the top guys from the Spurs front office, and have been a model franchise. There are 4 other franchises whose top guys are from the Spurs front office- 3 are new, so we’ll await to see how they go (Orlando, Atlanta & Utah), and the last is the Hornets. So far it seems to be going pretty well. Orlando is going to rebuild through the draft like the Thunder did (and fans are turning up to games to support the process), the Hornets are already in the process of doing so (fans are thrilled that the front office wasn’t allowed to go for mediocrity like the Pacers did with the vetoed Paul trade, and instead got to tank for Anthony Davis), and Atlanta and Utah’s best assets are from the lottery as well; they could both consider tanking in the future as the means to make the transition to contender, depending on how the offseason goes of course.

Who is trying to do what you guys and the Pistons did? Loser teams like the Bucks. I promise you, their fans would give anything to be going in the direction of any one of those 6 franchises who are managed by former Spurs guys. Don’t believe me? Go to their message board, all of them want to tank, and hate their mediocre front office. The Pacers have done much better of course, but it’s very hard to construct a team like that, and even when you do well (like the Pacers), you almost always come out as not a contender. Nor have the Pacers been flawless in their management, the Kawhi trade looks pretty bad for them now, and in a few years it will look much worse. So far all the Pacers have to show for their efforts is their 2nd season above 500 in the last 7 years, and a win% this season and last that still isn’t any better than what the Hawks managed in recently (were the Hawks a model franchise to be emulated, or were they a team who was going to peak at the 2nd round, not unlike the Pacers?).

So yeh, enjoy your successes, but let’s not get carried away here, or misunderstand the Pacers situation.

[Granger da OG]

Meh let me guess you're picking the Knicks to come out of the East.

[Wizop]

I've posted enough on this subject in the other forum. I can't even get the energy to read your entire post.

[Charcoal Filtered]

There is more than one path that can lead to a point. If every other team is following one path, there is opportunity in taking another.

Some of the points you made I will offer other perspectives:

1. Yes, the window appears to be shorter with West getting older and heading to FA this offseason. However, the Pacers have cap space and there are other younger options available. Playing next to a legit center and an allstar like George should make Indy a favored destination for one of these players.

2. Dirk was drafted ninth, so it was not as if Dallas tanked to get him.

3. The George Hill trade was for our pick, not Leonard. The Spurs just drafted well with our pick. Sort of like saying it was a bad idea to buy something that is worth a dollar if that dollar is then used to buy a lottery ticket that wins millions.

Of all of the matchups last year, I do not think anyone played the Heat better than the Pacers did. Most were looking at an upset after they went up 2-1, then Wade started playing like Wade. Personally, I would rather have a team that is competitive but does not possess that potential to be one of the greatest ever if it means not sitting thru decades of losing.

[MNPacersfan]

Actually, the Mavs traded Robert Traylor for Nowitzki, so it wasn't even tanking/drafting. It was shrewd trading.

[Pacerlive]

Color me confused... Why would Dallas want David West when they have Dirk playing the pf position. Please don't say that you think David will be their center. Dallas will go after a pg and a Center and that would be a guy like AL Jefferson or Peko.

We can call it the Spurs model or whatever but its simply picking the the best player available. When we picked Danny I believe we had Artest.

The Pacers have been doing it for a long time. Building up assets and making timely trades. This is what brought in JO from Portland and how the Pacers got to the Finals in 2000 so I wouldn't say "we have NOTHING to show for it" personally.

We still have our franchise which can't be said of Seattle and a number of other teams who took the lotto approach quite often and traded away their stars.

Edit: Forgot to mention if Artest doesn't go crazy in the palace then you are probably not writing this post btw.

[Dunkin Dutchman]

Edit: Forgot to mention if Artest doesn't go crazy in the palace then you are probably not writing this post btw.

Don't remind us....

[jman2585]

There is more than one path that can lead to a point. If every other team is following one path, there is opportunity in taking another.

Some of the points you made I will offer other perspectives:

1. Yes, the window appears to be shorter with West getting older and heading to FA this offseason. However, the Pacers have cap space and there are other younger options available. Playing next to a legit center and an allstar like George should make Indy a favored destination for one of these players.

The record of small market teams getting big name free agents is not good. You guys did well to get West, but the main reason you did was because a) you were willing to pay him more than Boston, and b) his team of origin was rebuilding and with an owner who had run out of money they had no interest in him. That's quite rare. Many teams in bigger markets than Indiana have stocked cap space and seen it go nowhere, including ones who were far more attractive destinations in terms of players to play next to (Spurs 2003, Mavs recently, etc). I just think the chances of you improving alot that way, with so many competitors for free agency this offseason, is not good.

2. Dirk was drafted ninth, so it was not as if Dallas tanked to get him.

That's really not true. They were always drafting Dirk, they just traded down to get him because it was smart business to do so. The Mavs got Dirk (and many of their assets) from the lotto (and from tanking). The Mavs got Dirk because their tanking/sucking let them get the 6th pick.

3. The George Hill trade was for our pick, not Leonard. The Spurs just drafted well with our pick. Sort of like saying it was a bad idea to buy something that is worth a dollar if that dollar is then used to buy a lottery ticket that wins millions.

I get that, and George Hill is a solid player, Spurs fans loved him. That said, the trade still looks like:
- Spurs got rid of a guy who was stuck on their bench, and who would have left in free agency for big money (like he's getting now), and got someone who looks like he could be an all-star type player (Marion like), plus 2 overseas players who could eventually be assets (Lorbek especially)
- Pacers in exchange got a good role player who is ideally suited to come off the bench.
It's pretty clear who won that trade, which is relevant when fans say they have the best front office, etc. If the Pacers GM was so good, he would have taken Leonard (or known the pick had more value).

Of all of the matchups last year, I do not think anyone played the Heat better than the Pacers did. Most were looking at an upset after they went up 2-1, then Wade started playing like Wade. Personally, I would rather have a team that is competitive but does not possess that potential to be one of the greatest ever if it means not sitting thru decades of losing.

That's fine for fans to prefer, I think sometimes a team is better off improving their culture, etc, and just enjoying the playoff runs they are getting. That said, it isn't necessarily a "model that should be emulated by teams" in that case.

[Gremz]

jman, I think you're looking at things from the wrong perspective.

Regardless of the optimism of Pacers fans right now (and hey, they're allowed to be excited considering the team's play) we're not sitting around comparing ourselves to the heat, or claiming our guys are superstars.

Do we match up well against teams like the heat? Absolutely. We've got size at every spot and have defended exceptionally well against most units this season. But that has nothing to do with our "rebuild". That's a totally different matter altogether, and I kind of think you've intertwined them too much.

As for the rebuild, there's little to fault from Indiana's perspective really. Considering that owners do treat their teams as businesses (as much as fans want to refute this), we've managed to steadily turn the ship around from a situation that could have left us in the dog house for years.

No disrespect to the Sacramentos or Minnesotas of the NBA, but they have had ample shots at "tanking" as you like to call it to net their superstar yet have failed to make many inroads at all in recent seasons. Indiana's case was one of making correct decisions regarding the team's improvement at regular intervals throughout recent seasons. Some fans may very well want to wait for a superstar to rock up on their doorstep, but realistically this just doesn't happen that often. By that logic there should be at least 30 superstars in this league, which we all know is not the case.

However, considering this team's progression and development we are a) ecstatic with where we are and b) still flexible enough where deals can be made to either upgrade the team currently or for the future.

Are we there yet? No.

Is there a possibility of improving the team enough to be considered a contender? Why not?

You're right in one thing, and that's this offseason being an important part of our current situation. Either retaining West or letting him go will obviously be a big part of our decision making, but saying stuff like Granger has no value or that we should have traded him years ago is a little off the mark.

There will always be a market for a guy like Granger in this league. Perhaps not the same value as a few seasons ago, but I assure you there will be multiple inquiries this offseason and probably quite a few options for the Pacers to look at in terms of squad strengthening or the future.

I believe the "rebuild" phase for each team isn't over until a new one starts, so let's not jump the gun on a unfinished product.

[jman2585]

There is a guy on the general board talking about how:
a) You have a great chance to beat the Heat, and
b) Other teams should be building their team like you are.

Saying "The Kings or Wolves are badly managed" doesn't refute the argument that the draft is generally the way to go. If your ownership sucks you fail no matter what path you take (though even then, the draft sometimes bails you out).

[Jake0890]

There is a guy on the general board talking about how:
a) You have a great chance to beat the Heat, and
b) Other teams should be building their team like you are.

Saying "The Kings or Wolves are badly managed" doesn't refute the argument that the draft is generally the way to go. If your ownership sucks you fail no matter what path you take (though even then, the draft sometimes bails you out).

We have the best chance in the East to beat the Heat. Possibly in the entire league. Everyone in the GB believes Miami is absolutely destined to repeat and can't be beat.

[Gremz]

There is a guy on the general board talking about how:
a) You have a great chance to beat the Heat, and
b) Other teams should be building their team like you are.

Saying "The Kings or Wolves are badly managed" doesn't refute the argument that the draft is generally the way to go. If your ownership sucks you fail no matter what path you take (though even then, the draft sometimes bails you out).

Of course the draft is a great way to build, but as you know nothing is guaranteed in the draft.

Other teams can do what they want, it doesn't really affect me.

[jman2585]

There is a guy on the general board talking about how:
a) You have a great chance to beat the Heat, and
b) Other teams should be building their team like you are.

Saying "The Kings or Wolves are badly managed" doesn't refute the argument that the draft is generally the way to go. If your ownership sucks you fail no matter what path you take (though even then, the draft sometimes bails you out).

We have the best chance in the East to beat the Heat. Possibly in the entire league. Everyone in the GB believes Miami is absolutely destined to repeat and can't be beat.

I don't really get how a team that is about 7th-8th best in the NBA at the moment (and who until a week ago had no separation from teams like the Rose-less Bulls, Nets, etc, and was behind the Knicks) is "the best chance" the NBA has to beat the defending champs... wouldn't those 6 or 7 teams clearly better than you be better chances? Given that they are better than you at playing basketball?

[Gremz]

Which aspects of basketball are they? By that logic we should just give the Spurs the title now.

[jman2585]

Everyone knows the Heat are coasting the regular season, but the regular season gives us a good feel for the quality of teams in the playoffs, and we have seen the Pacers team in the playoffs before too. I don't think my assessment of them as the 7th-8th best team is at all inaccurate... do you?

[Gremz]

Not at all. But at what point do we throw playoff runs and upsets out the window? Teams like Denver and the Clippers could certainly do some damage in the playoffs, as could we. Are any of them favorites? No. That's the beauty if sport.

[jman2585]

Like I said in my post, upsets are fun, but they're what happens to pretenders, not champions. In the NBA the best team wins basically. Teams don't win a title through "upsets", that's unheard of.

[Gremz]

That's I guess what I mean. In terms of "upsetting the heat" we're the best suited to make it happen. We're not contenders though.

[Charcoal Filtered]

Like I said in my post, upsets are fun, but they're what happens to pretenders, not champions. In the NBA the best team wins basically. Teams don't win a title through "upsets", that's unheard of.

So Dallas and Detroit did not win via upset?

[jman2585]

No. Detroit was not perceived as a contender when the 2004 season began... then they got Sheed and were suddenly touted as a contender. The Lakers were favoured going in, but in reality the Pistons were just underrated because their stars were guys who had just weird journeys to becoming stars. Ben Wallace had been sneered at as too undersized to play the 5, heck he'd even spent years being played as a 3 because teams didn't know what to do with him. Billups had a rough start to his career, having his confidence ruined by crappy college coach Pintino, and bounced around the NBA for a little bit before taking off on the Wolves when Brandon got hurt, and having Larry Brown round him out as a player. Sheed was a headcase (who people forgot had KG/Duncan type talent, if not drive or desire), Rip had been traded by the GOAT and was a young guy with no name yet, and nobody knew 2nd year Prince either. The Lakers were the Lakers, they were supposedly assured of winning. On paper though the Lakers were the opposite of the Pistons, they weren't as good as the "names" suggested. Payton and Malone had a combined age of nearly 80 and Payton was really washed out. Shaq was no longer peak Shaq, and Kobe played some of the most disgustingly selfish ball I've ever seen that year. The team had very poor chemistry, which is why of course they had not done that well in the regular season.

After 2004 people stopped underrating the Pistons. Something similar is true of the Mavs. Really, when you go and look at the regular seasons it was the Lakers and Heat who were overrated, as the regular seasons they had did not suggest they were in a different tier to the Pistons or Mavs those years. The Lakers for chemisty and depth issues, and the Heat because they hadn't gelled yet, they lacked depth, had bad balance and roster issues, etc. The Heat would correct those issues by the next season, but technically they weren't supposed to win the 2011 title when the season began (most picked the Lakers on ESPN), it was only after the Mavs crunched the Lakers that people said the Heat would win (because the Mavs had the "choker" tag still), which was odd because they probably should have been looking at the Mavs and asking "how did they just embarassingly sweet the team we picked to win?"

Now, if your argument is that you are being secretly underrated for whatever reason, and are really a top 2-3 team, you are welcome to make that argument. But that's the argument you would need to make, and I don't see it based on your make up. It seems like 7th-8th is a very reasonable ranking (one which only a week or so ago people might have found too generous).