Pacers Rebuild

[Nuntius]

Sure, they got Durant, you need some luck, but even without Durant they would have been on the right path to contention.

No. Without Durant the Thunder wouldn't be able to contend.

13-10 doesn't inspire confidence.

13 - 10 with your leading scorer for the past 5 years injured DOES inspire confidence.

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).

Yes. And the Pacers are one of the elite teams this season.

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.

Yes, they would win more in the East.

They'd be well ahead of the Pacers. Comparing you to the Jazz is a far more accurate and fair comparison.

They would be the #2 seed in the East. Just like the Pacers!

Comparing the Pacers to the Jazz is a completely inaccurate comparison. Their defense sucks. The Pacers defense is the best in the league.

Memphis is the best comparison because:

1) Top 2 defensive teams in the league.

2) Top 2 rebounding teams in the league.

3) Top 5 in slowest pace.

4) Both teams relying on post play for offense.

5) The two records are actually close. The Pacers are 15 games above .500 while the Jazz are only 5 games above .500. Memphis is 19 games above .500 which is a lot closer to Indiana's mark (+15) than Utah's.

There is a reason that both Indiana - Memphis games have been extremely close this year. The two teams are effectively doppelgangers. Indiana is 2 - 0 against Memphis but both games were really close. The Pacers won 88 - 83 in Indiana and 82 - 81 in Memphis.

Similarly, the game with Denver were really close as well. Denver is 2 - 0 against Indiana but take a look at the score. The Nuggets won 92 - 89 in Indiana and 102 - 101 in Denver (in an blown call that the NBA acknowledged the very next day).

Do you want to take a look at the games against the Jazz? The Pacers blew them out in Indiana (104 - 84) and lost by a very small margin in Utah (114 - 100 in an OT game).

The record, the differential (Pacers are 5th in differential in the NBA, above Memphis and Denver), the head to head matchups and the various advanced statistics (especially the defensive ones) indicate that Indiana is a LOT closer to Memphis and Denver than Utah.

Yet you deny it out of pure bias.

[jman2585]

The Cavs are sacrificing 3 years out of the playoffs so they can make the playoffs next year, and be a contender 1-2 years after that. You on the other hand spent 5 years averaging 35 wins per year, the outcome of which is you are still not a contender, made the 2nd round last year, and are currently on a similar trajectory this year. Your 2nd best player is a chance to leave in the offseason and is getting old, and there is no obvious path for you to become a contender. But the Cavs are doing worse how?

[Jake0890]

The Cavs are sacrificing 3 years out of the playoffs so they can make the playoffs next year, and be a contender 1-2 years after that. You on the other hand spent 5 years averaging 35 wins per year, the outcome of which is you are still not a contender, made the 2nd round last year, and are currently on a similar trajectory this year. Your 2nd best player is a chance to leave in the offseason and is getting old, and there is no obvious path for you to become a contender. But the Cavs are doing worse how?

Because they won't be a contender in 1-2 years.

[jman2585]

No. Without Durant the Thunder wouldn't be able to contend.

1) I said they'd be on the right path to contention, not contending, though frankly it'd be very damn close, especially since,
2) If they aren't maxing out Durant, they can keep Harden, which means they've now got Harden at SG, Thabo at SF, and are still a better team than the Pacers.
Nobody said you don't need some luck, that's essential under any model, but one model is more conducive to success, and that's what the Spurs/Thunder have done. It's called having a strategic direction, and not refusing to have bad seasons when you lack the foundation to win a title, on some sort of weird principle, that hurts you in the long term.

13 - 10 with your leading scorer for the past 5 years injured DOES inspire confidence.

Granger is not the savior you expect him to be, indeed it's clear your board feels the same way as there is a thread on page 1 called "The Inevitable Danny Granger trade" (viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1231864). The guy just replicates what you've already got (but worse), and doesn't solve the problems you do have. He also takes touches away from better guys, may not even be healthy, and has been in decline for years. There is little reason to think Granger is going to make much difference to your team record, anymore thn Rudy Gay made much of a difference to Memphis (I guess I should assume if they'd kept Gay, they'd be projecting 69 wins against the East instead of 64).

Yes. And the Pacers are one of the elite teams this season.

Nothing about the Pacers suggests that. Not their record against elite teams, not their SRS (7th), and certainly not when you view stats like point differential or their SRS through the prism of "these guys play in the East", meaning they play soft teams to pad out their averages and margins twice as much as Western teams do. You don't understand the huge disadvantage of playing out West (even though it's been pointed out to you in the record differential). In the West, the worst team would be the 9th best team in the East. That's how unbalanced it is. And those are the fodder teams that franchises like the Pacers get to pad their averages against.

Yes, they would win more in the East...They would be the #2 seed in the East. Just like the Pacers!

Except the Pacers are not the #2 seed, they're the #3 seed, and are only 2 wins ahead of NY because they've played 4 extra games. And yes, the Grizzlies would be the #2 seed... but by alot more than the Pacers are. Meanwhile the Pacers would be, what, 7th in the West? And they're supposedly a contender.

5) The two records are actually close. The Pacers are 15 games above .500 while the Jazz are only 5 games above .500. Memphis is 19 games above .500 which is a lot closer to Indiana's mark (+15) than Utah's.

Jazz and Memphis play in the West. This distorts how much better the Grizzlies are than you, and how close the Pacers are to the Jazz. This was explained to you. It distorts stats like differential too. Looking at the earlier calculations the Grizzlies would be a 64 win team if they only played Eastern teams, and if we were to compensate the imbalance by doubling the results of their Eastern games and halving the results of their Western games, the Grizzlies would currently be 46-17 (on a pace for a 60 win season) while the Pacers are on track for a 52 win season at the moment. Not close to comparable really. The Jazz on the other hand, using the same methodology, would be 37-25 (on a pace for a click under 50 wins), while the Rockets (who love feasting on Eastern teams) would be 45-26 (on a pace for 52 wins). Those are the comparable teams to you out West (even if not stylistically, certainly not in the Rockets case), not the Grizz.

There is a reason that both Indiana - Memphis games have been extremely close this year. The two teams are effectively doppelgangers. Indiana is 2 - 0 against Memphis but both games were really close. The Pacers won 88 - 83 in Indiana and 82 - 81 in Memphis.

The NBA is about averages. On any given night any other team can beat any other. The expansion Raptors beat the 72 win Bulls twice... it didn't mean anything though. One off games v.s the Grizz do not speak to the team they are this year, as a million other examples would show.

[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.

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.

You really don't see the trickle down effect of getting away from a winning culture. The Sonics did exactly that and it only precipitated the fall of them with the sale in 2001 and 06 which lead to team moving in 08. The bad management of the team led to the sale. They couldn't secure funding for the new arena becuase they had no leg to stand on. In the end you have to put a viable product on the floor that makes some profit.

IF the Pacers were to tank and by the Gods didn't get a franchise player of which there is only a handful in NBA then they would be likely to move as well.

I will say it again getting away from a winning culture gets you moved in the NBA if your a small market and the only reason why the Pacers weren't moved is because the city has bent over backwards for the Simon family.

Its fine to play arm chair GM but in the end what matters to most fans is that they can drive 30 minutes and see NBA basketball. Championships are the ultimate goal but having a team to cheer for trumps all esle IMO.

[Nuntius]

1) I said they'd be on the right path to contention, not contending, though frankly it'd be very damn close, especially since,
2) If they aren't maxing out Durant, they can keep Harden, which means they've now got Harden at SG, Thabo at SF, and are still a better team than the Pacers.

A team with Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka wouldn't be able to contend any more than Pacers currently do.

Granger is not the savior you expect him to be, indeed it's clear your board feels the same way as there is a thread on page 1 called "The Inevitable Danny Granger trade" (viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1231864). The guy just replicates what you've already got (but worse), and doesn't solve the problems you do have. He also takes touches away from better guys, may not even be healthy, and has been in decline for years. There is little reason to think Granger is going to make much difference to your team record, anymore thn Rudy Gay made much of a difference to Memphis (I guess I should assume if they'd kept Gay, they'd be projecting 69 wins against the East instead of 64).

I don't expect Granger to be a savior. But he will make a difference in our team.

Want to know why?

Which is the area that the Pacers suffer the most? Scoring points.

What is Granger's specialty? Scoring points.

Add them up, shall you? Granger will help the team because of his scoring. With Granger we become an average offensive team while retaining an elite defense. It's really simple.

Nothing about the Pacers suggests that. Not their record against elite teams, not their SRS (7th), and certainly not when you view stats like point differential or their SRS through the prism of "these guys play in the East", meaning they play soft teams to pad out their averages and margins twice as much as Western teams do. You don't understand the huge disadvantage of playing out West (even though it's been pointed out to you in the record differential). In the West, the worst team would be the 9th best team in the East. That's how unbalanced it is. And those are the fodder teams that franchises like the Pacers get to pad their averages against.

And why the East is so much worse than the West? Oh, that's right.

Because you have 6 teams in the East (Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, Charlotte, Orlando) that are tanking and following the model that you propose.

That's what makes the East weak. It's bottom feeders. But the top Eastern teams are as strong as the Western ones are.

Except the Pacers are not the #2 seed, they're the #3 seed, and are only 2 wins ahead of NY because they've played 4 extra games.

The Pacers and the Knicks are tied for the #2 seed. If the playoffs started today then the Pacers would have the #2 seed due to having won the h2h against New York.

And yes, the Grizzlies would be the #2 seed... but by alot more than the Pacers are. Meanwhile the Pacers would be, what, 7th in the West? And they're supposedly a contender.

The Pacers are 37 - 22 currently. Their actual record would put them #6 in the East, half a game below Denver.

If the Grizzlies and Pacers were to switch places right now then the Grizzlies would be #2 and the Pacers would be #5 (since the Grizzlies would no longer be there) and half a game below #4 (which would belong to Denver now).

Jazz and Memphis play in the West. This distorts how much better the Grizzlies are than you, and how close the Pacers are to the Jazz. This was explained to you. It distorts stats like differential too.

So, the reality is distorted when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Looking at the earlier calculations the Grizzlies would be a 64 win team if they only played Eastern teams, and if we were to compensate the imbalance by doubling the results of their Eastern games and halving the results of their Western games, the Grizzlies would currently be 46-17 (on a pace for a 60 win season) while the Pacers are on track for a 52 win season at the moment. Not close to comparable really. The Jazz on the other hand, using the same methodology, would be 37-25 (on a pace for a click under 50 wins), while the Rockets (who love feasting on Eastern teams) would be 45-26 (on a pace for 52 wins). Those are the comparable teams to you out West (even if not stylistically, certainly not in the Rockets case), not the Grizz.

13 - 5 is a 72.2% win percentage. That was the record of a healthy Pacers team versus the West last year.

72.2% over 82 games projects at 59.2 wins. So, the Pacers projected as a 59 win team in the West last season if we are to use your "formula".

The NBA is about averages. On any given night any other team can beat any other. The expansion Raptors beat the 72 win Bulls twice... it didn't mean anything though. One off games v.s the Grizz do not speak to the team they are this year, as a million other examples would show.

And the averages show that the Pacers beat their opposition as much as Denver does. It wasn't an off game for the Grizzlies and it wasn't an off game for the Pacers either when they lost to Denver. The teams are actually evenly matched and would make for an amazing playoff series.

I talked with actual stats and you countered with hypotheticals. That's the best you can do. But hey, I can talk hypotheticals as well

[jman2585]

You really don't see the trickle down effect of getting away from a winning culture. The Sonics did exactly that and it only precipitated the fall of them with the sale in 2001 and 06 which lead to team moving in 08. The bad management of the team led to the sale. They couldn't secure funding for the new arena becuase they had no leg to stand on. In the end you have to put a viable product on the floor that makes some profit.

IF the Pacers were to tank and by the Gods didn't get a fanchise player of which there is only a handful in NBA then they would be likely to move as well.

I will say it again getting away from a winning culture gets you moved in the NBA if your a small market and the only reason why the Pacers weren't moved is because the city has bent over backwards for the Simon family.

Its fine to play arm chair GM but in the end what matters to most fans is that they can drive 30 minutes and see NBA basketball. Championships are the ultimate goal but having a team to cheer for trumps all esle IMO.

And yet many small market teams are able to do it, so your claims just don't seem backed up. Are the Magic or Cavs in danger of moving because they blew the teams up? Doesn't seem like it. Meanwhile the fans in Indiana have not supported the current product in any event (another suggestion that maybe you are not the ideal team for others to model themselves on). It's just an assertion, but examples don't back it up (and anyway, you're locked into a long term arena lease now anyhow so the claim you'd have to move is just wrong).

[Pacerlive]

And yet many small market teams are able to do it, so your claims just don't seem backed up. Are the Magic or Cavs in danger of moving because they blew the teams up? Doesn't seem like it. Meanwhile the fans in Indiana have not supported the current product in any event (another suggestion that maybe you are not the ideal team for others to model themselves on). It's just an assertion, but examples don't back it up (and anyway, you're locked into a long term arena lease now anyhow so the claim you'd have to move is just wrong).

The Magic and the Cavs tried to do it your way and failed so I am not sure how that is a reason to follow tanking for a franchise player.

There is different type of supporting your team. Viewership is up and the fans helped pay for the arena something that Seattle wasn't willing to do. Attendance will recover but it would be a lot worse if a tank approach netted no super star which is more often the case in the NBA draft.

The lease was recently amended so if the Pacers did tank for a number years prior the city wouldn't have agreed to supplment the Pacers with arena improvements.

And for the record the Cavs and Magic FO didn't blow their teams up. That decision was made for them as a result of getting that MUST HAVE superstar.

[jman2585]

A team with Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka wouldn't be able to contend any more than Pacers currently do.

1) This is irrelevant since I said they'd be on the path to contention (and they would given the age of the players involved, and their numerous assets, which would create a way to get even better), and
2) They'd definitely be able to contend more than you guys now. Harden's 2nd best player is Omer Asik, and he is currently leading his team to the Western playoffs (and correcting the record for East/West imbalance, his team is fractionally ahead of your teams win %). I think we can feel confident that adding Harden in place of Durent they'd be a 55+ win team and top 4 Western team pretty comfortably. They'd be falling from a top 2-3 team to a top 4-5 team, but that's still better than the Pacers who are a top 7-8 team right now.

I don't expect Granger to be a savior. But he will make a difference in our team.

Want to know why?

Which is the area that the Pacers suffer the most? Scoring points.

He scores less efficiently than George and West. He will take away shots from more efficient guys while adding little else, and will struggle to defend faster guys when he's put against 2's. He'll also be coming back from an injury, and will be rusty and out of sync. I doubt he improves you at all.

What is Granger's specialty? Scoring points.

Granger's FG% last year was a cringe worthy 416. His 3pt %, while better, is still below what George is shooting this year. He takes too many shots, and is pretty bad as a shot creator. And in the current scheme he's admitted he'll have a reduced role, which makes sense since the Pacers won't go away from what's been working, meaning he'll mostly be relegated to being a jump shooter. It would actually help your team more to replace Granger with a guy like Korver or Battier. Korver wouldn't be quite as good at D (though with Granger coming back from injury, who knows), but would be alot better for you as a shooter, spreading the floor, while Battier gives you the shooting, better D, and plays off your other guys, instead of taking bad jump shots. It reminds me alot of the Grizz getting rid of Gay, and after a short adjustment looking just fine without him. Gay is the more athletic, better version of Granger, minus the fake all-star appearance (since he plays out West and the competition is more cutthroat). He's replicating stuff you're better off getting from elsewhere (i.e. George and West... and I don't say that lightly in George's case).

And why the East is so much worse than the West? Oh, that's right.

Because you have 6 teams in the East (Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, Charlotte, Orlando) that are tanking and following the model that you propose.

No, because you have a tonne of better run teams out West. The only one of those teams following the Spurs/Presti model are Orlando and the Cavs (and even the Cavs would look better if they hadn't had injuries this year), Toronto and Washington have in recent times been among the worst managed teams, and the Bobcats too. If anything I'd say Toronto and Washington are copying you more than they are tanking teams. Badly obviously. In the long term of course, Orlando and the Cavs will be much better off doing this, so it's absolutely the right strategy. It doesn't change the fact that the East is extremely weak (and has been for a long time, well before the Bobcats even existed), and it distorts the results.

That's what makes the East weak. It's bottom feeders. But the top Eastern teams are as strong as the Western ones are.

No, the Heat are as strong as the top teams out West (and on and off over recent years, the Bulls and Celtics when healthy/younger). Those teams SRS and win/loss records (broken down and on their own) and differentials all spoke to that fact. The Pacers? Just doesn't.

The Pacers and the Knicks are tied for the #2 seed. If the playoffs started today then the Pacers would have the #2 seed due to having won the h2h against New York.

No, the Knicks would be the #2 seed, owing to having a better win %. I'm not sure if you aren't capable of reading the standings, or just don't want to. You're not 2nd in the East!

The Pacers are 37 - 22 currently. Their actual record would put them #6 in the East, half a game below Denver.

Except their actual record (which still puts them 6th out West!) ignores the fact they are playing games against the weaker Eastern conference twice as often as the Western teams are. Factor that in, and I think 7th seed is generous on my part.

So, the reality is distorted when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Seriously? You don't understand the concept that playing much tougher teams twice as often distorts the win-loss record of teams? Really?

13 - 5 is a 72.2% win percentage. That was the record of a healthy Pacers team versus the West last year.

72.2% over 82 games projects at 59.2 wins. So, the Pacers projected as a 59 win team in the West last season if we are to use your "formula".

No, because I've compensated for Eastern results too. If we did what you have just done, the Grizzlies are a 64 win teams this year (without Gay, a better version of the equally bad fitting cog you're about to add in Granger). Your adjusted record last year would be 40-20, a worse record than you actually got (because you underachieved v.s the East). Last year, with a shortened season, things were a little wacky and the sample size is less reliable. I mean, you only played most Western teams a single time last year, during which any number of factors can distort the sample slightly (team was resting guys that day, guys were injured, etc). Besides, you get the record for this years team, not last years (otherwise why shouldn't Memphis get the even better 15-3 record they clocked in v.s the East that year!)

[Scoot McGroot]

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.

So basically, the plan is to trade everyone, suck, and hope that the #1 pick in your draft that you MAY HOPEFULLY get due to a lottery system is an Irving, Rose, Lebron, Duncan, or Durant, and not an Olowakandi, Oden, Bargnani, Bogut, Kwame, Kenyon, or Joe Smith year.

I mean, is Wall that guy, or do you have to continue to suck something awful for several more years to add to him? Is Anthony Davis that guy to immediately go for the playoffs and championships now, or do you have to suck a couple more years? Is Blake Griffin that guy, or is it really Chris Paul that is that guy?

Was Yao Ming that guy? Was Elton Brand that guy?

What about the Celtics in 1997? Tanked for Duncan but missed out in the draft lottery. Did they do it right? Was that what should have happened? Shouldn't they have been awarded Duncan and San Antonio's championships in hindsight?

[Pacerlive]

Just to add to what you posted Scoot even after you get that guy he can conspire to leave.

[jman2585]

So basically, the plan is to trade everyone, suck, and hope that the #1 pick in your draft that you MAY HOPEFULLY get due to a lottery system is an Irving, Rose, Lebron, Duncan, or Durant, and not an Olowakandi, Oden, Bargnani, Bogut, Kwame, Kenyon, or Joe Smith year.

There's a whole tonne of points imbedded within this, so I'll break them down:
1) The plan is not "suck", there were a number of other things guys like Presti and the Cavs did (to use two good examples). For one thing, they used their competetive advantages to gain more assets. For instance, they would eat bad contracts (provided the contracts were over before the rebuilding was expected to end), taking a short term hit, in exchange for assets. That's part of how Presti got Ibaka, and how the Cavs got Irving (they ate Baron Davis contract for a pick which, hilariously, turned out to be Irving. The idea is to get the young guys to learn to win together though, and not bring in short term vets who will help "win now" by a marginal amount, but will offset your rebuild in the process.
2) Run a results driven business. The Wizards for instance kept Wes Unseld around for years as a front office decision maker out of loyalty... he sucked. Business should not be about loyalty, it is primarily about results. First thing Presti (and Hennigan on the Magic) did was to interview all the old scouts, and fire the ones they didn't think much of, and bring in new scouts with proven records. The same approach tended to happen all over the organisation staff in fact. In the case of the Cavs they focused on metrics which they felt consistently measured value. Originally the Cavs got alot of heat for all 3 of Irving, Waiters and Thompson. However Irving now looks awesome, Thompson looks very promising indeed, and Waiters much the same (his stats and play have been right there with Beal, and both have picked up as the season has gone on). I'd take Beal mind you, and I think Waiters will be closer to the 5th or 6th best guy in this draft them the 4th, but they've done well.
3) Look at some of the busts you're naming- Kandiman, drafted by a franchise notorious for cutting money, who proved they had poor scouts, poor GM's, poor decision makers. Oden was bad luck, he looked like he'd be a huge star. Like I said, you need some luck too, if all your guys get hurt you're boned (no matter what model you follow). Bogut was a pick for need from a terrible front office (who is too focused on loyalty and continuity, and not on results), the Raptors front office is much the same (how has their GM not been fired after years of failure?), Kwame was picked by Wed Unseld (see above, don't let people with no proven record as scouts vet your picks), and Joe Smith was not only picked by a bad front office, but in a time when scouting wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today. He was a heck of a role player in any event.
4) Almost the only way for a small market franchise to get franchise players is the lottery. It isn't foolproof, but it's more reliable than every other way (much like that Churchill quip... democracy is the worst system... except for every other system). That's why the only guy you've got who has even a remote hope of being a franchise player is from the lottery. The fact it isn't 100% guaranteed to work is not a meaningful criticism. Nothing in life is certain. It makes it more likely though. Even badly run teams have lucked into success via the lottery in a way they could never hope to do without it.

I mean, is Wall that guy, or do you have to continue to suck something awful for several more years to add to him? Is Anthony Davis that guy to immediately go for the playoffs and championships now, or do you have to suck a couple more years? Is Blake Griffin that guy, or is it really Chris Paul that is that guy?

Anthony Davis is that guy. Blake is that guy. Paul is and was that guy. That's why those teams are either contending now (Clippers), or on the road to contention (Hornets). I'll be astonished if the Hornets aren't a contender within 2-3 years, and of the 6 Spur front office outposts I'd label them the weakest. Paul wasn't able to stay that guy for the Hornets because the front office was very bad, and was losing money, forcing them to cut costs all over the place. Things were so bad the owner was eventually forced to sell to the NBA. No model could have helped that situaton (where the owners other investments in the property market meant he could no longer afford a team).

Wall isn't that guy, and that's partly because the front office there sucks. I think he could still be a useful piece on a contender though.

Was Yao Ming that guy? Was Elton Brand that guy?

Ming sure was. Brand wasn't quite a franchise player (except maybe for 1 year at his peak), but he would be a valuable player for a contender no question.

What about the Celtics in 1997? Tanked for Duncan but missed out in the draft lottery. Did they do it right? Was that what should have happened? Shouldn't they have been awarded Duncan and San Antonio's championships in hindsight?

Huh? They were right to tank, but they were very badly managed at the time- hired a terrible coach who had no idea how to utilise Billups and got run out of the NBA, forcing them to trade him for nothing, threw away all-star talents like Joe Johnson, drafted bums like Kendrick Brown over Richard Jefferson, Zach Randolph, Tony Parker (who they promised to draft then took it back!), G.Wallace, etc, etc. Drafted Mercer over T-Mac, etc.

It doesn't change the central thesis we've discussed. Tanking/blowing a team up is often the smart thing to do, and a much easier way to achieve success (when success does not already exist) than trying to copy the "Pacer model".

[jman2585]

Just to add to what you posted Scoot even after you get that guy he can conspire to leave.

Yeh, he'll be gone in 8 years. If you can't build a contender by then around a star, you don't deserve to keep him. You also get to offer him more money still.

[Pacerlive]

Just to add to what you posted Scoot even after you get that guy he can conspire to leave.

Yeh, he'll be gone in 8 years. If you can't build a contender by then around a star, you don't deserve to keep him. You also get to offer him more money still.

Or 7 but who cares about accuracy. The Cavs bent over backwards for Lebron but nothing came of it which suggest that its not as easy as you think. They were also contenders as well but that wasn't good enough for him.. So are you going to define contender now as a team that wins a championship to suite your argument?

[jman2585]

Lebron risked less money to leave after 7, something even guys like Melo and Dwight weren't willing to do. Sometimes 7, mostly 8. Long enough to ensure you get a contender.

The Cavs didn't get a competent manager until Ferry came in, and by then things were so boned there was virtually nothing he could do aside from get vets to help Lebron win now, and hope they won a title and Lebron was loyal. The previous GM (Paxson) was what ruined Lebron's chances of staying, any Cavs fan can tell you that. Every mistake you're thinking of either was Paxson's work, or not really the mistake you think it was.

The Cavs franchise, despite having their chances of keeping Lebron crippled by Paxson's handiwork, was still amply rewarded by their decision to tank 2003. They got years of playoff appearances, built a fanbase, increased the franchises value, and were far more successful than the current Pacers look to have any shot at being.

[Nuntius]

1) This is irrelevant since I said they'd be on the path to contention (and they would given the age of the players involved, and their numerous assets, which would create a way to get even better), and
2) They'd definitely be able to contend more than you guys now. Harden's 2nd best player is Omer Asik, and he is currently leading his team to the Western playoffs (and correcting the record for East/West imbalance, his team is fractionally ahead of your teams win %). I think we can feel confident that adding Harden in place of Durent they'd be a 55+ win team and top 4 Western team pretty comfortably. They'd be falling from a top 2-3 team to a top 4-5 team, but that's still better than the Pacers who are a top 7-8 team right now.

So, you're telling me that a team with Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka would be #4 in the West?

And you're also telling me that the Rockets would be better than the Pacers if they were in the East?

He scores less efficiently than George and West.

Danny Granger's career TS%: 56.3%

David West's career TS%: 54.2%

Paul George's career TS%: 54.5

So, no. Granger is the most efficient scorer out of the 3. Once again, stats prove you wrong.

and will struggle to defend faster guys when he's put against 2's.

George is going to defend the opponent's best offensive wing no matter his position.

He takes too many shots

Granger only took too many shots in the years that the teams were really ****. It's when Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy or TJ Ford were his second best players.

The very season that the Pacers got better (the year we got Darren Collison, drafted Paul George and Hibbert started developing into a threat inside) Granger averaged 15.9 FGA per game (and was putting up 20.5 PPG with those shots).

The next season that the Pacers got even better (signed David West, got George Hill and Paul George and Hibbert improved more) Granger averaged 15.2 FGA.

In his career, Granger is averaging 14 FGA and 18.1 PPG. He will only take tons of shots when the team around him is ****. This team is not **** so Granger isn't going to take tons of shots.

It reminds me alot of the Grizz getting rid of Gay, and after a short adjustment looking just fine without him.

Memphis replaced Gay with a better fit for their team. Prince is a better fit on Memphis than Gay. Do you want to know why? Prince can shoot. Gay is not really a dead-eye shooter.

Gay is the more athletic, better version of Granger, minus the fake all-star appearance (since he plays out West and the competition is more cutthroat).

Gay is better than Granger?

Man, you're hilarious.

Yes, athleticism is great but you do not win basketball games based on athleticism. If you did then Gerald Green would be a champion.

So, where does Gay's athleticism help him?

Is it scoring? No. Gay averages 17.9 PPG in his career on 15.3 FGA. Granger averages 18.1 PPG in his career on 14 FGA. Rudy Gay's career TS is 52.4%. Danny Granger's career TS is 56.3%. That's because Granger is a great 3pt shooter while Gay is only an average one.

Granger scores more than Gay on less shots and is far more efficient.

Is it rebounding? Not so much. Gay averages 5.8 RPG in his career. Granger averages 5.2 RPG in is career. Per 36, Gay averages 5.7 RPG while Granger averages 5.7 RPG as well. But even ignoring per 36 Gay is only a slightly better rebounder than Granger.

Is it assisting? No. Both Gay and Granger average 2 APG in their respective careers (and Granger is actually ahead in per 36 minutes).

Is it stealing? You could say so. Gay averages 1.4 SPG in his career. Granger averages 1 SPG in his career. Per 36, Gay remains at 1.4 SPG while Granger only moves up to 1.1 SPG. So, Gay has a slight edge in steals.

Is it blocking? Nope. Both Gay and Granger 0.9 BPG in their respective careers (and Granger is actually ahead in per 36 minutes).

Is it defense? No. Gay should have been an excellent defender with his athletic gifts but he isn't. Granger, despite being a mediocre defender in the years that Jim O'Brien coached, has a slightly higher DRtg than Gay in his career (106 to 107, although I'll admit that the difference is minimal) and more Defensive Win Shares (19.4 to 17.3).

Let's not talk about Offensive Win Shares and total Win Shares since Granger dwarves Gay in both of those metrics. Danny Granger's career OWS are 27.3 while his total WS are 46.6. Gay on the other hand is at 12.4 OWS and 29.7 WS.

It's also important to note that Gay turns it over a bit more. He averages 2.3 TPG in his career while Granger averages 2 TPG in his career. Per 36, it's closer with Granger going up to 2.2 TPG while Gay remains at 2.3 TPG.

So, Danny Granger is a far better and more efficient scorer than Gay, equal with him in terms of assisting and blocking (although better per 36) and a little worse at rebounding (although equal per 36) and stealing. He is also less turnover prone. And he helps his team winning a lot more. Oh, and Granger is probably a better defender as well.

What has Gay going for him? Oh yeah. Athleticism. Great.

The reality is that Gay was never better than Granger. He lived off the hype of his great 2nd year and his athleticism but he never managed to improve on it or even replicate it. That's why he was never an All-Star. He never deserved to be one. Rudy Gay never had a season averaging 25.8 PPG on 58.4 TS%, 5.1 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1 SPG and 1.4 BPG with a 21.8 PER. Danny Granger did.

And let's not forget that Gay was paid a lot more money than Granger was. Granger's deal was home-friendly and he was never overpaid.

Once again, you're proven wrong by solid facts. But you're going to ignore it again, won't you?

The Pacers and the Knicks are tied for the #2 seed. If the playoffs started today then the Pacers would have the #2 seed due to having won the h2h against New York.

No, the Knicks would be the #2 seed, owing to having a better win %. I'm not sure if you aren't capable of reading the standings, or just don't want to. You're not 2nd in the East!

Please, read this:

In the event two or more teams are tied in the standings, a series of tiebreakers are applied to determine which team receives the higher seeding.

Two-Team Tiebreaker:
1. Division winner (this criterion is applied regardless of whether the tied teams are in the same division)
2. Better record in head-to-head games

Here's the link -> http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/matchups

Let's see how this criteria would play out:

1) Knicks lead the Atlantic Division. Pacers lead the Central Division. So, we'll have to go to number 2.

2) Pacers have a 2-1 lead in the season series against the Knicks.

So, if we were to go in the playoffs today the Pacers would be the #2 seed because both teams are tied (15 games over .500, 6 and a half games behind the Heat) but the Pacers are leading the season series against the Knicks.

The only reason the Knicks are currently above the Pacers in the standings is due to win percentage. And the only reason that they have a better winning percentage is because they have played 4 less games. That will even out at the end of the season

Seriously? You don't understand the concept that playing much tougher teams twice as often distorts the win-loss record of teams? Really?

Oh, I understand that concept. But I also understand the concept of beating the teams you're playing against. If my team doesn't reach the Finals because they play in the East and thus play the best team in the league in the Playoffs (the Heat), I'm not going to blame the Conference that pits me against the Heat and say "damn, if I played in the Western POs I would have a better chance at the Finals". Why? Because it is purely hypothetical.

The thing is that it's not easy to be top 4 team in either conference. If you have HCA in the POs then chances are that you are pretty good.

Last year, with a shortened season, things were a little wacky and the sample size is less reliable.

And this season we were playing without our leading scorer for the last 5 seasons. So, why would this sample be more reliable?

jman2585, it's clear that for whatever reason you dislike the Pacers and what they have done so far. You have every reason to do so. I don't know which team do you support and I don't really want to know either.

But I want to know one thing. What's your agenda?

Seriously, just tell us. You have spent hours and hours, discussing tons of things about the Pacers and going round in circles. What is your motive? What is your goal? Why are you doing this?

It has exceeded the boundary of having an in-depth conversation. So, I would like to know why. Are you going to tell us or are you going to ignore it?

[jman2585]

So, you're telling me that a team with Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka would be #4 in the West?

I think most sensible people would think that. Harden is really, really good. The Thunder would be the same team, but swapping Durant for Harden. Which makes them worse, but still awesome. Thabo can play the 3 no problems, so they're not losing much in terms of the line-up.

And you're also telling me that the Rockets would be better than the Pacers if they were in the East?

It's not confusing, I showed you the math, the Rockets on an extrapolation of their current East/West record would be fractionally ahead of the Pacers in wins if they played Eastern teams twice as many times, and Western teams half as many times. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. I'm not sure what part of the math is confusing to you, other than you don't like the outcome.

There is nothing radical about the premise that the West is a hugely tougher environment to play in. The West has consistently outperformed the East in head to head matches for over 13 years now, by a significant margin, and that's why we constantly see teams whose record in the East is not really as good as you think it is, and vice versa. Again, this is not a complex point, you seem to have no response to it except emoticons.

Danny Granger's career TS%: 56.3%

David West's career TS%: 54.2%

Paul George's career TS%: 54.5

So, no. Granger is the most efficient scorer out of the 3. Once again, stats prove you wrong.

I don't care about their career efficiency. I care about their efficiency right now, because this is about how good they are right now, not 5 years ago. I realise with Danny Granger it's comforting to pretend it was still 5 years ago, when he looked much more promising, but it's not. Last year for instance, would be a better barometer for how efficient current version of Granger is. And last years Granger had terrible efficiency (while West has good efficiency this year, and George has better efficiency). Why would I assume Granger, coming back from an injury and in decline for years, will start putting up better efficiency than he did last year (and better than he has in years?). I wouldn't. Looking at career TS% to defend Granger here is like looking at the ppg average of Shaq when he was on the Cavs, and extrapolating that he must have been an all-star on the Cavs.

George is going to defend the opponent's best offensive wing no matter his position.

And when the other team has 2 wings who can score? Or when they play small? Who will Granger guard then? It is still problematic that Granger will often be asked to guard guys he cannot keep up with, while on offense he will be relegated to little more than a spot up shooter. You'd be better off with Korver or Battier, which tells you something about just how minor his impact is going to be.

I agree he won't be taking many shots anymore. That's the point, he'll be little more than a jump shooter in your offense (and if he's more, it'll be stealing the spacing and role of 2 guys who are more efficient than him), in which case he is just providing an overlap of skills you already have (and don't need), while not conributing the skills you actually do need (someone with handles and a mid-range game who can penetrate).

Memphis replaced Gay with a better fit for their team. Prince is a better fit on Memphis than Gay. Do you want to know why? Prince can shoot. Gay is not really a dead-eye shooter.

Nor is Granger really. He is solid on 3's and pretty bad on mid-range jumpers and everything else. You might as well just get a pure shooter, it'd do more than Granger would, at least they'd space the floor properly. A long time ago Granger was indeed more valuable than Gay. That was a long time ago. I can't imagine Granger having the trade value Gay just had, and Gay has a worse contract to boot (and was still more valuable an asset than Granger). Your attempt to compare them with career stats shows a disingenuousness (career stats don't tell you who they are as players right now).

Please, read this:

In the event two or more teams are tied in the standings, a series of tiebreakers are applied to determine which team receives the higher seeding.

Two-Team Tiebreaker:
1. Division winner (this criterion is applied regardless of whether the tied teams are in the same division)
2. Better record in head-to-head games

But... you're not tied in the standings. I cannot believe you are persisting with this for the 3rd time:
http://espn.go.com/nba/standings
See, these are the standings. NY is 2nd, because their win% is 636, while you are 3rd because your win% is 627. This is not complex.

The only reason the Knicks are currently above the Pacers in the standings is due to win percentage. And the only reason that they have a better winning percentage is because they have played 4 less games. That will even out at the end of the season

So you can read, fantastic. So when you said you were currently 2nd, you were wrong. Nice to know. And why would we assume it's going to even out in your favour. Technically the Knicks would need to go 2-2 over their next 4 games for it to "even out", and that's a 500. win%, unlike the 636. they're actually batting at.

Oh, I understand that concept. But I also understand the concept of beating the teams you're playing against. If my team doesn't reach the Finals because they play in the East and thus play the best team in the league in the Playoffs (the Heat), I'm not going to blame the Conference that pits me against the Heat and say "damn, if I played in the Western POs I would have a better chance at the Finals". Why? Because it is purely hypothetical.

So you're going to ignore the fact that some teams play much tougher opponents twice as much when deciding if they are better than you. That's certainly a novel appoach to take. You laugh at the idea the Rockets are ahead of you, but in reality adjusted standings would suggest you'd currently be maybe 7th in the West. There's a pretty obvious disconnect there.

The thing is that it's not easy to be top 4 team in either conference. If you have HCA in the POs then chances are that you are pretty good.

The Hawks must have a similar claim to success as the Grizzlies then, right? Except the Hawks are not a contender, because "we have HCA" is a ridiculous metric of whether you're a contender, especially when one conference is vastly tougher than the other conference.

And this season we were playing without our leading scorer for the last 5 seasons. So, why would this sample be more reliable?

Because he was a bad scorer? Because he is not going to be your 2nd or even 3rd scorer when he gets back, and has admitted his role will be lesser? Because what he did 5 years ago has nothing to do with the player he is right now? Because despite trading the better version of Granger, and having a losing period right after when they were adjusting to it, the Grizz still have a much better record than you? Those seem like plenty good reasons to me.

I don't like people posting irrational things which are clearly not true, and this certainly qualifies. You've even gone as far as to suggest being in a tougher conference is utterly irrelevant!

[Nuntius]

I think most sensible people would think that. Harden is really, really good. The Thunder would be the same team, but swapping Durant for Harden. Which makes them worse, but still awesome. Thabo can play the 3 no problems, so they're not losing much in terms of the line-up.

Yes, Harden is really, really good. But he's not anywhere close Durant's level. I seriously doubt that the Thunder would be better than the Grizzlies with Harden in Durant's place.

It's not confusing, I showed you the math, the Rockets on an extrapolation of their current East/West record would be fractionally ahead of the Pacers in wins if they played Eastern teams twice as many times, and Western teams half as many times. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. I'm not sure what part of the math is confusing to you, other than you don't like the outcome.

That's not a fact, it's a hypothesis. Your math is not factual. It's hypothetical.

There is nothing radical about the premise that the West is a hugely tougher environment to play in. The West has consistently outperformed the East in head to head matches for over 13 years now, by a significant margin, and that's why we constantly see teams whose record in the East is not really as good as you think it is, and vice versa. Again, this is not a complex point, you seem to have no response to it except emoticons.

Yes, the West is tougher than the East. I'm not going to dispute that.

But also I'm not going to bet my main on a hypothetical case. You can argue all you want but your claim is a hypothesis.

Plus, the Pacers have proved that they are good against the West in both of the last two seasons. If we had a horrible record vs the West then I would see your point. But we don't.

So, I'm sorry.

When the actual facts are telling me that these Pacers are pretty good against the West then I'm not going to bet that they are not based on some mathematical hypothesis that may or may not prove to be right.

I don't care about their career efficiency. I care about their efficiency right now, because this is about how good they are right now, not 5 years ago.
I realise with Danny Granger it's comforting to pretend it was still 5 years ago, when he looked much more promising, but it's not. Last year for instance, would be a better barometer for how efficient current version of Granger is. And last years Granger had terrible efficiency (while West has good efficiency this year, and George has better efficiency). Why would I assume Granger, coming back from an injury and in decline for years, will start putting up better efficiency than he did last year (and better than he has in years?). I wouldn't. Looking at career TS% to defend Granger here is like looking at the ppg average of Shaq when he was on the Cavs, and extrapolating that he must have been an all-star on the Cavs.

Right now, Granger has only played 4 games due to injury. Shall we compare last season's TS%?

Danny Granger: 54.2%

David West: 53.1%

Paul George: 55.5%

Let's also see what David West and Paul George are doing right now.

David West: 53.6%

Paul George: 53.9%

So, Paul George posted a better TS% last year when he played 4th-5th fiddle and feeding off of Granger. Due to this season's abysmal start he is posting a worse TS% but that has been trending upwards lately and he is showing signs that he can handle that role.

But he still has yet to be astonishing from deep on the road like Danny. That's normal because he is a young player, of course.

But you are underestimating Granger. And I'm in no way, shape or form pretending that we're getting back the Granger from 5 years ago. I loved last year's Granger. Even if we get half of that player his impact on our team is going to be a lot better than Battier or Korver.

And when the other team has 2 wings who can score? Or when they play small? Who will Granger guard then? It is still problematic that Granger will often be asked to guard guys he cannot keep up with, while on offense he will be relegated to little more than a spot up shooter.

When the other team has 2 wings who can score then Granger will handle the one that operates in the post the most. Granger is stronger than George currently and handle the strong 3s / undersized 4s in the post better. I have no doubt that George will be better at it in the future, of course.

You'd be better off with Korver or Battier, which tells you something about just how minor his impact is going to be.

That's your assumption. Not a fact. The dropoff that our offense had in this season compared to last season (with Granger we were #10 in offensive efficiency) proves that his impact in our team is bigger than you think.

Nor is Granger really.

Granger is not a dead-eye shooter? His 3pt% and FT% disagree with you.

A long time ago Granger was indeed more valuable than Gay. That was a long time ago. I can't imagine Granger having the trade value Gay just had, and Gay has a worse contract to boot (and was still more valuable an asset than Granger). Your attempt to compare them with career stats shows a disingenuousness (career stats don't tell you who they are as players right now).

If Granger does not prove that he is able to get back to his previous level after the injury then he will probably not have the trade value that Gay had.

But if he proves able to play in his previous able then he will have a higher value than Gay.

Why? It's quite simple. He would be an elite 6th man for a contending team. Much like Kevin Martin. A deluxe scorer off the bench.

Also, it's important to note that the FO didn't shop Granger like Memphis' FO did with Gay.

But... you're not tied in the standings. I cannot believe you are persisting with this for the 3rd time:
http://espn.go.com/nba/standings
See, these are the standings. NY is 2nd, because their win% is 636, while you are 3rd because your win% is 627. This is not complex.

So you can read, fantastic. So when you said you were currently 2nd, you were wrong. Nice to know. And why would we assume it's going to even out in your favour. Technically the Knicks would need to go 2-2 over their next 4 games for it to "even out", and that's a 500. win%, unlike the 636. they're actually batting at.

1) Of course, I can read.

2) I never said we were #2. I said that we were tied at #2.

3) The Knicks are 5-5 in the last 10. They have been playing .500 ball for a while. They started the season at 20 - 7 (a .704 winning percentage). They have been declining ever since. It's clear that they are not that team anymore.

Plus, let's see their next 4 games:

vs Miami, @ Cleveland, @ Detroit, vs OKC.

So, yeah. I definitely that they will go 2 - 2 in their next 4 games.

So you're going to ignore the fact that some teams play much tougher opponents twice as much when deciding if they are better than you. That's certainly a novel appoach to take. You laugh at the idea the Rockets are ahead of you, but in reality adjusted standings would suggest you'd currently be maybe 7th in the West. There's a pretty obvious disconnect there.

Oh no, I'm not going to ignore the fact that Western Conference teams have a tougher schedule than Eastern Conference teams.

I just expect a Western Conference team to show its superiority upon said Eastern Conference team when they match-up. If an Eastern Conference team gets repeatedly beaten up by Western Conference opponents then I will agree that they are not as strong as their record indicates.

But if they are beating those Western Conference teams more often than not for the past 2 seasons then I'm not going to take anything away from their success. There is a reason 4 top teams of the East (Miami, New York, Indiana, Atlanta) + Boston have a good record against the West. They're not actually bad teams.

The Hawks must have a similar claim to success as the Grizzlies then, right? Except the Hawks are not a contender, because "we have HCA" is a ridiculous metric of whether you're a contender, especially when one conference is vastly tougher than the other conference.

No. The Hawks do not have a similar claim to success as the Grizzlies. Three reasons why:

1) Louis Williams tore his ACL. He was important for them.

2) The Hawks are nowhere close the Grizzlies when it comes to defense and rebounding. They are not bad defensively (top 15 in most metrics and #7 in Opponent Fastbreak points) as a whole but they are really bad at guarding the 3 (#29 in the league) and they are nowhere close to the Grizzlies. Plus, they are #23 in rebounding differential indicating that they are below average in this aspect.

3) In the playoffs, if you don't have a star you need two things. Defense and rebounding. The Pacers and the Grizzlies have those two things. Which is why they can go deep in the post-season. The Hawks do not have those things.

Because he was a bad scorer? Because he is not going to be your 2nd or even 3rd scorer when he gets back, and has admitted his role will be lesser? Because what he did 5 years ago has nothing to do with the player he is right now? Because despite trading the better version of Granger, and having a losing period right after when they were adjusting to it, the Grizz still have a much better record than you? Those seem like plenty good reasons to me.

I already proved to you with actual numbers that Granger is not a bad scorer and that Gay is a worse player than Granger. It really is not my fault that you keep ignoring statistics if they happen to prove you wrong.

Plus, 38 - 19 is certainly a better record than 37 - 22 but I really fail to see the much better part. You are aware that if the Grizzlies lose their next 2 games and the Pacers win their next 2 games that the record is going to be 38 - 21 for the Grizzlies and 39 - 22 for the Pacers, aren't you?

Not that the Grizzlies are going to lose their next 2 games, of course. All I'm trying to say is that their record (while better of course) is not much better like you said.

In any case:

Are you going to reveal your agenda to us or you're going to act like you didn't see my question again?

[jman2585]

Yes, Harden is really, really good. But he's not anywhere close Durant's level. I seriously doubt that the Thunder would be better than the Grizzlies with Harden in Durant's place.

Feel free to make a thread about it. I feel pretty confident people would have them as a 55 win type team (whether that's ahead of the Grizzlies or not, they'd still be ahead of you, which is what 4-5 signifies).

That's not a fact, it's a hypothesis. Your math is not factual. It's hypothetical.

All math is hypothetical in some senses, in that we have to make assumptions about the values of numbers. This math gives us a very good idea of how Houston projects if they had a schedule as easy as you. And they project just in front. That's what you need to think about next time you talk about the Pacers as a contender, just ask yourself "is Houston a contender?" or "is the 7th seed in the West a contender?"

Yes, the West is tougher than the East. I'm not going to dispute that.

But also I'm not going to bet my main on a hypothetical case. You can argue all you want but your claim is a hypothesis.

You're basically disregarding it though. Every metric indicates the Grizzlies for instance are much better than you (SRS, wins, Conference record, etc), but somehow you're right there with them in your own mind. Based on? The opinion of a Pacer fan. The evidence doesn't back you up.

Plus, the Pacers have proved that they are good against the West in both of the last two seasons. If we had a horrible record vs the West then I would see your point. But we don't.

They've proved their bad against good teams this year too. Extrapolating your West record shows your "goodness" to still be much worse than the Grizz. That's what you're ignoring here, every metric shows us you're closer to being the 8th best team this year than you are than being the Grizzlies.

When the actual facts are telling me that these Pacers are pretty good against the West then I'm not going to bet that they are not based on some mathematical hypothesis that may or may not prove to be right.

The only facts you've looked at is "we played a few close games with the Grizz", but as has been explained to you in the regular season anything can happen in a few games. Any team can beat (or push) any other. Looking at 1 or 2 individual games, and ignoring all the other evidence (like your record, adjusted record, SRS, etc) is just silly.

Right now, Granger has only played 4 games due to injury. Shall we compare last season's TS%?

Danny Granger: 54.2%

David West: 53.1%

Paul George: 55.5%

This is where TS is misleading, because it's punishing West for not taking 3's. It's fine to compare Granger and George with TS%, because it's measuring the same thing, and those 2 would theoretically be taking the same kinds of shots (3's, jumpers, etc). West on the other hand only plays in the post, and when asking if Granger is more efficient at the types of shots West will be taking, you should look at his FG%, or his % on shots in the post if you want to get creative. Those both easily favour West. Using a stat that rewards Granger's 3pt shooting is meaningless, West doesn't shoot 3's, and Granger will not be taking 3 point shots from West (he'll be taking efficient post shots).

But you are underestimating Granger. And I'm in no way, shape or form pretending that we're getting back the Granger from 5 years ago. I loved last year's Granger. Even if we get half of that player his impact on our team is going to be a lot better than Battier or Korver.

Not really, for the reasons explained in depth.

When the other team has 2 wings who can score then Granger will handle the one that operates in the post the most. Granger is stronger than George currently and handle the strong 3s / undersized 4s in the post better. I have no doubt that George will be better at it in the future, of course.

Neither may operate in the post.

Granger is not a dead-eye shooter? His 3pt% and FT% disagree with you.

He sure ain't Korver, and Battier is at least as good (or better) but better at the role Granger will be asked to play (glue guy with versatile D).

Why? It's quite simple. He would be an elite 6th man for a contending team. Much like Kevin Martin. A deluxe scorer off the bench.

Kevin Martin doesn't have the same value Gay did, even with an expiring contract. Granger will never recapture his form of 5 years ago, we know because he's been trying to for 5 years.

2) I never said we were #2. I said that we were tied at #2.

Firstly, you did say you were 2nd. Secondly, you weren't tied either!

No. The Hawks do not have a similar claim to success as the Grizzlies. Three reasons why:

Then your metric of "teams with home court advantage are x good" isn't a good one, is it? Likewise, you having home court advantage in the first round has no bearing on your overall quality as a team (i.e. about 8th overall- not a contender).

Plus, 38 - 19 is certainly a better record than 37 - 22 but I really fail to see the much better part. You are aware that if the Grizzlies lose their next 2 games and the Pacers win their next 2 games that the record is going to be 38 - 21 for the Grizzlies and 39 - 22 for the Pacers, aren't you?

Much better because if you corrected for them playing in the West they'd be on target for 60 wins, in spite of trading Gay and slumping after having to adjust to losing Gay, while you are headed for 52 wins. Pretty obvious, unless you ignore West/East as you do. Because you're a Pacer fan.

[Nuntius]

Firstly, you did say you were 2nd. Secondly, you weren't tied either!

1)

The Pacers and the Knicks are tied for the #2 seed. If the playoffs started today then the Pacers would have the #2 seed due to having won the h2h against New York.

2) Look at the standings now

Are you still going to insist in your ridiculous "the Pacers and Knicks were not tied" argument? Becaus the standings right now are indicating that the Pacers are 1 game ahead of the Knicks. In order to have a 1 game difference, you have to be actually tied before the start of this day's games.

So, yeah..

Look, we're not reaching a conclusion anytime you soon. We keep going in circles. Why? Because you keep ignoring actual stats (TS%, record vs West, the effin' standings, Defensive Efficiency, Opponent FG% / TS% / eFG% / 3p%, rebounding differential, point differential etc.) while I keep ignoring some actual facts (SRS, record vs .500) and several hypothetical "facts" (adjusted record formula etc.).

Therefore, we're not going to reach a conclusion anytime soon.

I will stand by my opinion that teams like Indiana and Chicago are much more like Memphis than like Utah and Houston. You won't to find a comparable team to Utah? It's Atlanta. The teams display the same strengths / weaknesses so it's pretty fair to compare them.

Would Memphis be a contender with an injured Conley? No, they wouldn't. But that doesn't make them any less of a contender.

Plus, you still have not told us what's your agenda. Are you going to pretend that I didn't ask or are you going to pretend that you don't have an agenda and you're just trying to have a "honest" discussion?