Pacers Rebuild

[jman2585]

Big men take longer to develop

There's very little evidence for that proposition. You will doubtless site ridiculous examples like Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph, and then people like myself will point out why those are ridiculous examples.

Mahinmi is not getting any better, the Mavs and Spurs got rid of him for a reason. Hibbert and Hill have shown us who they are as players, players improving much at age 27 (which is how old they'll be next year when this improvement is supposedly going to take place) is extremely rare, and there's no reason to think these guys will. George doesn't just need to improve, he needs to become a different player, and you can see from the general board what most people think of that idea.

Lakers, Clippers, Thunder all look like loses to me, plus Houston on the road. That back to back against the Mavs the next day isn't likely to be a pushover either.

[Scoot McGroot]

Rose is arguably a significantly better player and his impact on his team is great (although, Granger's impact is big as well) and Chicago would be better with him. That's a given. But we don't know how Rose will play after the injury. He can be even better than he was or he could not ever be the same player. You just don't know.

Just listen to yourself. You're comparing the impact of Danny Granger on the Pacers to the impact of Derrick Rose on the Bulls. Pacers fans standing silently by without comment are doing this board no services, as passer bys will come to think this guy represents the views of other Pacer fans too.

Uh, no. We're standing by because in no way did he say that Granger is better than Rose, nor even equal. He stated specifically that Rose is a significantly better player, and he used different grades of words to describe their impact (fyi: in America, "great" is considered much larger than "big"). Maybe that's the reason for confusion on your part?

Come on, if you want to insult us, at least insult us for what we've said, not something that you misread.


Also guys, I have no idea how you keep going back and forth. It's civil so far, and so long as it stays civil, keep it up. At some point, though, you both may have to recognize that you're not going to change the opinion of the other. You're each quoting advance stats and metrics to prove your points. They're just conflicting points both backed by some evidence. There's likely a middle ground, or the fact that you may have to both understand that past stats don't always guarantee future results.

[Wizop]

1) I didn't say that the Pacers were "higher" than the Knicks. I said tied. Tied!

2) At the day of the post in question the standings read the following:

Knicks 35 - 20

Pacers 37 - 22

Yes, the Knicks have the higher winning percentage due to less games played. But both teams are 15 games over .500 and both teams were 6 and a half games behind the #1 seed, the Heat.

That makes them tied. It's simple as that.

I'm sorry, but you are just not right. some call being within percentage points but the same number of games behind the leader a virtual tie but it is not a mathematical tie. the Knicks were ahead of us that day. their lead was small but it was a lead. he's wrong about so many other things that there is no reason to cloud the discussion by arguing about the one little thing that he happens to be right about. let's move on.

[Nuntius]

There's very little evidence for that proposition. You will doubtless site ridiculous examples like Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph, and then people like myself will point out why those are ridiculous examples.

No, I'm not going to cite Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph. There were valid reasons for why they didn't have major impact early in their careers. Situation matters (as I've said numerous time) and both players were not in the right situation to produce.

But let me cite some other examples:

Bill Laimbeer: He averaged 10.8 PPG and 9.4 RPG until he was 25. During his prime (4 seasons from 26 to 29), he averaged 16.7 PPG and 12.3 RPG.

Rik Smits: He spent his whole career in Indiana. He averaged 13.2 PPG and 5.6 RPG in his 5 first seasons here. He turned 27 in his 6th season. During his prime (5 seasons from 27 to 31), he averaged 17.1 PPG and 6.9 RPG.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas: He had a very nice prime from 02-03 to 05-06. He was 27 in 02-03 and 30 in 05-06. He averaged 16.2 PPG and 7.9 RPG during that time. However, in this case you can easily claim that he was hintered by injuries early in his career and thus could not produce at that level in an earliest time.

Mike Gminski: Do you remember that guy? He looked like Marc Gasol when he was active (with his curly hair and beard). You could argue about his lack of PT in his 2nd and 3rd season but he still averaged 28.2 MPG in his 1st seaon and 29.9 MPG in his 5th season. In his 6th season, he averaged 31.2 MPG (1.3 MPG more, hardly a difference-maker) but he vastly improved (see his 41 points / 22 rebounds against the Celtics for an example). He was 26 in his 6th and proceeded into having a very good prime until he was 30. From 85 - 85 until 89 - 90, he averaged 16.1 PPG and 8.98 RPG. In his first five seasons in the NBA he was only averaging 9.1 PPG and 5.6 RPG.

Chris Kaman: He had his breakout season when he was 25 years old. In the 07-08 season he averaged 15.7 PPG, 12.7 RPG and 2.8 BPG. He was injured for the most part of the 08-09 season but he returned in 09-10 to prove that his 07-08 wasn't a fluke. He averaged 18.5 PPG and 9.3 RPG during the 09-10 season and earned an ASG selection.

Horace Grant: It's important to note that the famed General didn't took the league by surprise despite being a top 10 pick. In his first 4 seasons, he averaged 11.4 PPG and 7.5 RPG. He was 26 when he entered his 5th season. In the next 4 seasons (26 in 91-92 to 29 in 94-95) he averaged 13.8 PPG and 9.99 RPG (3018 rebounds in 302 games). In other words, he improved from a 12 and 8 guy (if we want to round up so much) to a 14 and 10 guy. He became a double-double threat and while this improvement was not exceptional, it was quite noticeable.

Marcus Camby: He started off a scoring and shotblocking big in Toronto (averaging 13.4 PPG and 2.8 BPG over 2 seasons there) but he wasnt a particularly strong rebounder (he averaged 6.8 RPG in those 2 seasons). He was 26 when he showed promise as a double-double threat in New York when he averaged 12 PPG, 11 RPG and 2.2 BPG but he was injured for the most part of the 01-02 season and he was traded to Denver. He recovered from his injury in the 03-04 season. He was 29 years old then. He had a good season averaging 8.6 PPG, 10.1 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.2 SPG and 2.6 BPG. And then he had 4 seasons in which he played the best ball of his career. He was in his 8th season and 30 years old when he started his great run in Denver. From the 04-05 season until the 07-08 season (from 30 to 33 years old), he averaged 10.7 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 3.3 BPG and 2.7 APG (all of those numbers are significantly higher than his career average). He also received the DPOY award in the 06-07 season.

Sam Bowie: The infamous player who was picked above Michael Jordan (well, Hakeem was picked above Jordan as well but he also is a HOFer). He suffered from injuries most of his career but he still played enough games in his 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th seasons. From the 89-90 season until the 91-92 season he posted quite good numbers in New Jersey. He was 28 in 89-90 and 30 in 91-92. He averaged 14.2 PPG and 8.69 RPG (so, 8.7 in reality) during that span numbers are significantly better than his career average and better than his rookie season (in points at least since his rebounding was the same with his rookie season).

You see, there is a reason why bigs take longer to develop. The college or European game are significantly different than the NBA game. The level of athleticism in the NBA is completely different and most bigs are forced to gain weight if they want to bang inside the paint. They have to put significant work in their body if they want to be successful. Guards do not have to do this as much as a big guy has. And it often takes time to get acclimated to a heavier frame. You cannot be as nimble and explosive at 280 lbs as you were at 240 lbs. It's pretty simple, actually.

Mahinmi is not getting any better, the Mavs and Spurs got rid of him for a reason.

Mahinmi can get better as a rim protector. That's all I ask. I don't expect him to start averaging a double-double all of a sudden. All I want from him is to deny penetration when Hibbert is on the bench. He has shown that he can do it so far but he lacks consistency. He can easily improve in that regard.

The Spurs didn't got rid of him. They just didn't play him because he tore his pectoralis major in the 2007 Summer League. He was a prospect that got injured and then buried in the Austin Toros. He was never needed in San Antonio as they Fabricio Oberto, Matt Bonner and DeJuan Blair to round up their big man rotation. He only appeared in 32 games from 2007 until 2010. He played 56 games in his first season in Dallas as a deep end bench player but he was bumped into the rotation following Chandler's rotation and became a rotation player in his second season there. He played 61 games and was a starter in 12 of them. He averaged 5.8 PPG and 4.7 RPG in 18.7 MPG. That's hardly impressive but Omer Asik averaged 3.1 PPG and 5.3 RPG in Chicago as a bench player playing 14.7 MPG. In Houston, he is a double-double machine.

I'm not trying to suggest that Mahinmi will be like Omer Asik if he's given minutes, mind you. I'm just trying to say that his numbers are what one should expect given his minutes.

In any case, Dallas didn't get rid of him either. We just wanted him a lot and offered a deal that Dallas could not decline.

As I said, the only thing that I expect from Mahinmi to improve on is his rim protection. There's no reason that this cannot happen as he continues to play alongside an elite defensive big man.

Hibbert and Hill have shown us who they are as players, players improving much at age 27 (which is how old they'll be next year when this improvement is supposedly going to take place) is extremely rare, and there's no reason to think these guys will.

And I will say it again. I don't expect Hibbert and Hill to improve much. I don't expect a 6 point jump in PPG or a 4 point jump in APG or a 5 point jump in RPG. I expect some improvement. I don't expect tons of it.

Roy Hibbert is averaging 10.3 PPG and 8 RPG in this season. He averaged 12.8 PPG and 8.8 RPG last season. He averaged 12.7 PPG and 7.5 RPG in the 10-11 season. There is no reason not to expect him to return to 12.5 PPG and 8.5 RPG. Also, since he is still in his prime you can expect some additional improvement as well. Nothing big. 13.5 - 14 PPG and 9 - 9.4 RPG will do.

George Hill averaged 9.6 PPG, 3 RPG and 2.9 APG in his first season in Indiana playing 25.5 MPG. He missed 16 games due to injury and only started 9 games as a PG. He played 41 games as a 6th man.

In his first season as a starting PG, he is averaging 14.7 PPG, 4.9 APG, 4 RPG and 1 SPG playin 35 MPG. He is shooting 45.2% from the field, 37.1% from 3 and 80.6% from the FT line. He is still learning how to play as a PG (after spending his college years as a SG and his NBA years as a 6th man) and he is bound to improve. He is essentially a rookie at the PG position as he has not yet played a full NBA season as a starting PG. Considering this fact, it's fairly easy to expect some improvement.

Improving to 15.5 PPG and 6 APG while still retaining elite rebounding for the PG spot is not out of the question.

George doesn't just need to improve, he needs to become a different player, and you can see from the general board what most people think of that idea.

Honestly, have you seen Paul George play after the December 1 game versus Golden State?

Several people on the GB board have not since Indiana rarely has nationally televised games. Ask simba (his nick also has 4 numbers on it). He is a Lakers fan but he has watched several Indiana games in order to see how Paul George develops. Ask him what he thinks of him.

Paul George had a bad game against Chicago. But even in a bad game he was 4 assists short of a triple double.

Lakers, Clippers, Thunder all look like loses to me, plus Houston on the road. That back to back against the Mavs the next day isn't likely to be a pushover either.

I don't expect any team to be a pushover. I respect every opposing team and in general you will not see me being consantly disrespectful towards any team (unlike you, ahem).

We will have to wait and see what happens in those games. I'm not going to make any predictions about the games as I am a bit superstitious.

But I'm willing to bet that we will go above .500 in those 7 games. So, sig bet?

[Nuntius]

I'm sorry, but you are just not right. some call being within percentage points but the same number of games behind the leader a virtual tie but it is not a mathematical tie. the Knicks were ahead of us that day. their lead was small but it was a lead. he's wrong about so many other things that there is no reason to cloud the discussion by arguing about the one little thing that he happens to be right about. let's move on.

I see. I don't really get why winning percentage puts a team ahead in the NBA since in Europe the opposite happens (the team with the most wins / points is ahead) but if that's how the NBA works then I'm going to accept it

[Wizop]

we go by points in hockey where a win is two points and a tie is one point but in basketball where there are no ties we go by percentages. if you had looked at the official NBA standings that day, and I did, the Knicks were listed ahead of us. perhaps you are used to European football (soccer) standings where there are ties.

I don't see how it affects the fundamental argument though which is why I want to move on. I'm very happy with our team and I think Vogel and West deserve as much if not more credit than Bird and Walsh because they got the group to put winning above egos. as much as I'd like to give the credit to the front office for assembling a deep roster, I can't forget how awful our second unit looked against Chicago's second unit Sunday night.

we're on our way to a 50 win season and that has always been the gold standard for success in the NBA. I really don't see the argument that because we would be an underdog to Miami and some number of teams in the West that we are not yet succeeding. now if someone were to argue that we're not yet an elite team because we have a losing record on the road, that I'd have to concede although I'd hope that there is still time to reverse that statistic. we did have a winning road record last year.

[Nuntius]

we go by points in hockey where a win is two points and a tie is one point but in basketball where there are no ties we go by percentages. if you had looked at the official NBA standings that day, and I did, the Knicks were listed ahead of us.

I looked at the NBA standings at that day. But I thought it was a tie. Why? Because most basketball journalists, players and even fans on this and other sites tend to say "X games over .500" and / or "X games behind Z team". That's why I thought that people took the "X games over .500" and "X games behind Z team" is the leading criteria and the win % only as a mean to project an 82 game season.

In any case, thank you for explaining this to me

perhaps you are used to European football (soccer) standings where there are ties.

We don't have ties in European basketball either because as you know basketball games must decide a winner. A win is 2 points whereas a loss is 1 point.

37 - 22 = 96 points

35 - 20 = 90 points

If I was going by that metric I wouldn't even say that it was tied (although, I did)

In any case, you are right that being used in the European way that standings work contributed to my apparent confusion.

[jman2585]

These examples aren't really any better.

Bill Laimbeer: He averaged 10.8 PPG and 9.4 RPG until he was 25. During his prime (4 seasons from 26 to 29), he averaged 16.7 PPG and 12.3 RPG.

This is almost an intentionally misleading example. Laimbeer entered the NBA at age 23. By his 2nd year in the NBA, it was apparent the player he was (putting up 12.8ppg and 11.3rpg with 2 assist for the Pistons). He scored a little more in future years because he was asked to (but hovered from 13-17), but it wasn't like he suddenly developed scoring skills that weren't there in his 2nd year, and he was averaging 17 by age 26 anyway, so it's certainly no example for how big men develope after 26). The only thing he really developed was a slightly reliable 3pt shot (but even then, it wasn't so much that he couldn't shoot early on, it was a) he was never open, and b) he was not supposed to take 3 point shots. Once the Pistons became uber deep, he started to get open 3's, and it become a good thing for him to practice it more. When he came into the NBA though 3's had only just been introduced, so it's hardly surprising he wouldn't be asked to use them much).

Rik Smits: He spent his whole career in Indiana. He averaged 13.2 PPG and 5.6 RPG in his 5 first seasons here. He turned 27 in his 6th season. During his prime (5 seasons from 27 to 31), he averaged 17.1 PPG and 6.9 RPG.

Another ridiculous example, because you're using misleading numbers like "his avg over his first 5 years" without context. Smits had a stamina problem, he couldn't play consistently big minutes (or so his coaches thought), so even in his best years he'd usually get played 30 mpg max. He also played on some teams with talented big guys, and often was asked to score less (or play less). Look at the per 30mpg numbers, and you'll get a more accurate story (he'd basically finished developing by his 4th year in he NBA). In his 2nd year Smits put up 15 and 6 on great efficiency, and in his 6th year he put up... um, 15 and 6 on great efficiency. I'm not seeing the improvement, all I'm seeing is a guy who played more minutes, and who was doing the exact same things he was always doing, but playing more minutes some years, and in a few of them being asked to score a little more (depending on the depth of the team, the system, etc). But clearly didn't develop much as a player later in his career, and as a Pacer fan you should have known this.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas: He had a very nice prime from 02-03 to 05-06. He was 27 in 02-03 and 30 in 05-06. He averaged 16.2 PPG and 7.9 RPG during that time. However, in this case you can easily claim that he was hintered by injuries early in his career and thus could not produce at that level in an earliest time.

This is again an example of you misunderstanding context. Per 36 Z-Ill was doing the same things early in his career that he did late, in fact he was probably better in his rookie year than any future year (check the per 36 #'s). It wasn't like Z-Ill was being held back because he was good enough to play 36 minutes, rather he suffered a series of horrific foot injuries after his rookie year, which forced him to play limited minutes at times, and then later as his foot improved he started to get more minutes again (though never regaining the athleticism of his youth). Horrible example.

Mike Gminski: Do you remember that guy? He looked like Marc Gasol when he was active (with his curly hair and beard). You could argue about his lack of PT in his 2nd and 3rd season but he still averaged 28.2 MPG in his 1st seaon and 29.9 MPG in his 5th season. In his 6th season, he averaged 31.2 MPG (1.3 MPG more, hardly a difference-maker) but he vastly improved (see his 41 points / 22 rebounds against the Celtics for an example). He was 26 in his 6th and proceeded into having a very good prime until he was 30. From 85 - 85 until 89 - 90, he averaged 16.1 PPG and 8.98 RPG. In his first five seasons in the NBA he was only averaging 9.1 PPG and 5.6 RPG.

Gminski looked good as a rookie, his per 36 numbers were in line with his prime, but then the Nets decided to play him off the bench because they thought his skills were better that way. That hurt his averages for 3 years (but helped the team). His per 36 #'s look similar through this period.

Why was Gminski coming off the bench? In his rookie year the team sucked, and had a mandate to play him. The next year Larry Brown was hired and told the team he wanted to win, so he started veteran big Elmore over Gminski (and it worked, the team went from 24 wins to 44). The next few years Brown continued to improve the team, this time playing the newly acquired Darryl Dawkins over Gminski (which also worked). Then in his 5th year, at age 25, Dawkins got hurt, and Gminski got his chance, doing the exact same things he'd been doing per 36 mins as before (but getting more minutes, because he wasn't stuck on the bench behind vets like Dawkins). The team of course started to get worse each year, in part because Gminski wasn't that good. Again, not an example. Hibbert is not being held back because of better players or something, for all intents and purposes he is it for the 5 spot on your team. He's being held back by himself. That isn't the case with guys like Gminski or Smits or Z-Ill or Laimbeer.

Chris Kaman: He had his breakout season when he was 25 years old. In the 07-08 season he averaged 15.7 PPG, 12.7 RPG and 2.8 BPG. He was injured for the most part of the 08-09 season but he returned in 09-10 to prove that his 07-08 wasn't a fluke. He averaged 18.5 PPG and 9.3 RPG during the 09-10 season and earned an ASG selection.

I wouldn't call that his "break out year" (it's not like he continued it consistently), so much as his peak (which lasted about 1 year, he never came close to 12.7 rpg again). Per 36 minutes he'd scored the same in earlier years anyhow, and per 36 his rebounding is consistent through his whole career (aside from this peak year), as are his blocks more or less. And he was 25, not 27 (as Hibbert will be next year, when he can apparently still break out). Another non-example.

Horace Grant: It's important to note that the famed General didn't took the league by surprise despite being a top 10 pick. In his first 4 seasons, he averaged 11.4 PPG and 7.5 RPG. He was 26 when he entered his 5th season. In the next 4 seasons (26 in 91-92 to 29 in 94-95) he averaged 13.8 PPG and 9.99 RPG (3018 rebounds in 302 games). In other words, he improved from a 12 and 8 guy (if we want to round up so much) to a 14 and 10 guy. He became a double-double threat and while this improvement was not exceptional, it was quite noticeable.

Ho Grant got better in each of his first 4 years (like you'd expect) and by his 5th year was a complete player (though still only marginally better than he'd been in previous years, esp per 36). His improvement was extremely marginal, less than 1 ppg more in his 5th year than his 4th (per 36), and 1 rebound per game more per 36. He was also still younger than Hibbert, who you expect to undergo more than a marginal change (if all Hibbert does is average an extra point and rebound per game in his peak year next year, on marginally better efficiency, then slumps back a touch, it's not going to make much different to your team.

Marcus Camby: He started off a scoring and shotblocking big in Toronto (averaging 13.4 PPG and 2.8 BPG over 2 seasons there) but he wasnt a particularly strong rebounder (he averaged 6.8 RPG in those 2 seasons). He was 26 when he showed promise as a double-double threat in New York when he averaged 12 PPG, 11 RPG and 2.2 BPG but he was injured for the most part of the 01-02 season and he was traded to Denver. He recovered from his injury in the 03-04 season. He was 29 years old then. He had a good season averaging 8.6 PPG, 10.1 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.2 SPG and 2.6 BPG. And then he had 4 seasons in which he played the best ball of his career. He was in his 8th season and 30 years old when he started his great run in Denver. From the 04-05 season until the 07-08 season (from 30 to 33 years old), he averaged 10.7 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 3.3 BPG and 2.7 APG (all of those numbers are significantly higher than his career average). He also received the DPOY award in the 06-07 season.

Camby isn't an example for anyone, because his career was subject to massive injuries that distort all his averages. Per 36 minutes he was far better at scoring in his 1st year than any future year, and far better shot blocking in his sophomore year than he'd ever be again. Camby did not "improve" later on, so much as get different amounts of minutes because of injury factors (he was also affected by things like team pace - Denver played fast, team role- NY didn't want him to do as much because the team was deep, etc. It's absurd to treat that DPOY seriously, or to suggest that he had a late prime of some sort. At any rate, his massive injuries distort everything. Hibbert has not had massive injuries, so we have no reason to think he's being held back because of them.

Sam Bowie: The infamous player who was picked above Michael Jordan (well, Hakeem was picked above Jordan as well but he also is a HOFer). He suffered from injuries most of his career but he still played enough games in his 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th seasons. From the 89-90 season until the 91-92 season he posted quite good numbers in New Jersey. He was 28 in 89-90 and 30 in 91-92. He averaged 14.2 PPG and 8.69 RPG (so, 8.7 in reality) during that span numbers are significantly better than his career average and better than his rookie season (in points at least since his rebounding was the same with his rookie season).

Sam Bowie's early years were derailed by injury. Absurd example. His whole career was subject to injuries. It wasn't a late prime, merely that in some years he was able to physically get up and down the court enough to show a pulse, and in others he wasn't (especially early on). Your examples are just horrid.

If anything, there are better recent examples for late development of PG's, with Nash, Billups, and to a lesser extent Conley and Parker as examples of guys developing other parts of their game later on. Though mostly for all players of all positions, you can basically see who they are by about 25 (or earlier), and after then they don't change much if at all from that basic outline. Your argument was there was something special about bigs that made them take longer to develop, but looking at the examples above there's nothing to support that, nobody is saying a guy comes into the NBA fully formed, every position taes time to adjust into, etc (unless you're Duncan or D.Rob, hey weren't they bigs?), but Hibbert had 4 years of college to prepare him for the NBA, and is in his 5th year in the NBA (age 26), the idea he has untapped potential he hasn't had a chance to develop yet seems extremely unlikely. The player he is now should be the player you expect him to be for the rest of his prime.

Mahinmi can get better as a rim protector. That's all I ask. I don't expect him to start averaging a double-double all of a sudden. All I want from him is to deny penetration when Hibbert is on the bench. He has shown that he can do it so far but he lacks consistency. He can easily improve in that regard.

So he's a bench scrub big. Inconsequential as a factor to you guys improving enough to be conenders.

The Spurs didn't got rid of him. They just didn't play him because he tore his pectoralis major in the 2007 Summer League. He was a prospect that got injured and then buried in the Austin Toros. He was never needed in San Antonio as they Fabricio Oberto, Matt Bonner and DeJuan Blair to round up their big man rotation. He only appeared in 32 games from 2007 until 2010. He played 56 games in his first season in Dallas as a deep end bench player but he was bumped into the rotation following Chandler's rotation and became a rotation player in his second season there. He played 61 games and was a starter in 12 of them. He averaged 5.8 PPG and 4.7 RPG in 18.7 MPG. That's hardly impressive but Omer Asik averaged 3.1 PPG and 5.3 RPG in Chicago as a bench player playing 14.7 MPG. In Houston, he is a double-double machine.

No, the Spurs got rid of him. They didn't think much of it, and ditched him. The Mavs tried him out just to be sure he didn't have some hidden talent, and then they gave up on him too (and they're a team who will give any potential talent a try, even wacky players like Pavel and Whang Zhi Zhi).

And I will say it again. I don't expect Hibbert and Hill to improve much. I don't expect a 6 point jump in PPG or a 4 point jump in APG or a 5 point jump in RPG. I expect some improvement. I don't expect tons of it.

If they don't improve a tonne, then your team remains nowhere near the talent case they require to be a real contender. You remain a team whose best player is an all-star (but not franchise player), and whose 2nd and 3rd best players are not really all-stars, whose PG is at best average-ish, and probably not even that. I can't think of a team like that who has ever contended for a title. Ever. Can you?

[Nuntius]

Your argument was there was something special about bigs that made them take longer to develop, but looking at the examples above there's nothing to support that, nobody is saying a guy comes into the NBA fully formed, every position taes time to adjust into

Yes, there is something special about bigs. The paint is much more physical in NBA than anywhere else. Bigs are asked to change their body the most than any other player. Changing your body and adding a lot of muscle and weight alter a player's balance. Altering one's balance, alters several other areas of your come. People take time in order to get these stuff under control.

(unless you're Duncan or D.Rob, hey weren't they bigs?)

Duncan, D. Rob, Shaq etc. were game-changing talents and transcedent athletes. They were men among boys and made an immediated impact. I never made any attempt to compare Hibbert (or anyone else) to any of those players. Such an attempt would be ludicrous and I don't even get why you're mentioning it.

but Hibbert had 4 years of college to prepare him for the NBA, and is in his 5th year in the NBA (age 26), the idea he has untapped potential he hasn't had a chance to develop yet seems extremely unlikely.

Have you seen Hibbert play this season? He is added weight in his upper body to absorb contact better (which improved him as a shot blocker) but he didn't add enough weight in his lower body (which made his FG% to plummet). With a stronger lower base, he would average more PPG and more RPG as it would be harder to throw him off balance.

It's not a matter of developing skills or "tapping" potential. It's really a simple matter of improving one's body.

The player he is now should be the player you expect him to be for the rest of his prime.

So, I should expect him to be a worse offensive player for the rest of his prime than he was in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons? 'K, got it.

So he's a bench scrub big. Inconsequential as a factor to you guys improving enough to be conenders.

Having a rim protector in the 2nd unit that can deny penetration is not an inconsequential factor. Not if you value defense at least..

No, the Spurs got rid of him. They didn't think much of it, and ditched him. The Mavs tried him out just to be sure he didn't have some hidden talent, and then they gave up on him too (and they're a team who will give any potential talent a try, even wacky players like Pavel and Whang Zhi Zhi).

The Spurs didn't trade him. They just let him expire because he didn't show anything while he was there due to injuries. Also, the Mavs got a very good offer for him. They didn't exactly gave up on him. They would be fools not to take Darren Collison (still on a rookie contract) + Dahntay Jones (that they eventually traded for Morrow) for an expiring deal.

If they don't improve a tonne, then your team remains nowhere near the talent case they require to be a real contender. You remain a team whose best player is an all-star (but not franchise player), and whose 2nd and 3rd best players are not really all-stars, whose PG is at best average-ish, and probably not even that. I can't think of a team like that who has ever contended for a title. Ever. Can you?

Paul George is not a franchise player according to you. But shall we wait a bit before we judge a 22 year old?

[Nuntius]

PS: You know that per 36 is not really a good measure for Centers. Rik Smits had stamina issues. Can you guess who else has stamina issues? Yes, Roy Hibbert. He has exercise-induced asthma and that's why he doesn't play big minutes.

[tocooks]

2-0 against your Heat this year J-man, judging by your posts we are in your head

[jman2585]

Yes, there is something special about bigs. The paint is much more physical in NBA than anywhere else. Bigs are asked to change their body the most than any other player. Changing your body and adding a lot of muscle and weight alter a player's balance. Altering one's balance, alters several other areas of your come. People take time in order to get these stuff under control.

Your examples don't support that contention though. Things like changing your body or adjusting your game is true at every position.

Have you seen Hibbert play this season? He is added weight in his upper body to absorb contact better (which improved him as a shot blocker) but he didn't add enough weight in his lower body (which made his FG% to plummet). With a stronger lower base, he would average more PPG and more RPG as it would be harder to throw him off balance.

It's not a matter of developing skills or "tapping" potential. It's really a simple matter of improving one's body.

He's played worse than last year though, so it's unclear it's helping him at all. Plus the guy was already bigger than Vegas last year compared to most 5's, the problem isn't his lack of size, the problems are things like: he sucks at finishing, he has a poor feel on offense, he makes bad decisions with the ball. Those aren't things him adding or losing weight will help.

So, I should expect him to be a worse offensive player for the rest of his prime than he was in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons? 'K, got it.

You should expect him to give another huge effort next contract year, one that takes a toll on him that is unsustainable beyond that year. Of course it's possible the shortened season helped too.

PS: You know that per 36 is not really a good measure for Centers. Rik Smits had stamina issues. Can you guess who else has stamina issues? Yes, Roy Hibbert. He has exercise-induced asthma and that's why he doesn't play big minutes.

Which doesn't matter, since it's not going to change for the better for Hibbert next year.

Paul George is not a franchise player according to you. But shall we wait a bit before we judge a 22 year old?

Lots of people agree with me, including most non-Pacer fans on that general board thread.

Also, not a Heat fan really, just a fan of good basketball. The Heat are champs, and even before then obviously had contender talent- they deserve the respect they earnt. You guys have not earnt or shown anything to really indicate contender status (and certainly not to being comparable to Memphis).

[Nuntius]

By his 2nd year in the NBA, it was apparent the player he was (putting up 12.8ppg and 11.3rpg with 2 assist for the Pistons).

In his 2nd year in the NBA, Laimbeer put up 12.8 PPG, 11.3 RPG and 1.8 APG in a limited 30 game sample.

In his 4th year in the NBA, Laimbeer put up 17.3 PPG, 12.2 RPG and 1.8 APG in an 82 game sample.

In his 5th year in the NBA, Laimbeer put up 17.5 PPG, 12.4 RPG and 1.9 APG in an 82 game sample.

Isn't this improvement? Yes, it is.

In his 2nd year Smits put up 15 and 6 on great efficiency, and in his 6th year he put up... um, 15 and 6 on great efficiency. I'm not seeing the improvement, all I'm seeing is a guy who played more minutes.

In his 2nd year, Smits put up 15.5 PPG and 6.2 RPG playing 29.3 MPG.

In his 7th year, Smits put up 17.9 PPG and 7.7 RPG playing 30.5 MPG.

That's a small increase in minutes but a decent increase in production. That's the improvement that I'm seeking.

Per 36 Z-Ill was doing the same things early in his career that he did late, in fact he was probably better in his rookie year than any future year (check the per 36 #'s).

Ilgauskas per 36:

Rookie year: 17.2 PPG, 10.9 RPG.

5th season: 20.6 PPG, 9 RPG.

8th season: 19.2 PPG, 9.3 RPG.

So, even in per 36, Ilgauskas improved had his scoring heights in his 5th and 8th seasons. Those two seasons were his heights in per 36 although his 5th and 7th seasons were his heights in actual production. In all 3 of those seasons, he was better than his rookie season both per 36 and in actual production as well.

The only thing that rookie Ilgauskas was better at was rebounding (although, a 32 year old Ilgauskas was slightly better at it). One can argue that Boozer's presence in the 5th season and LeBron's / Gooden's presence in the 7th and 8th season contributed to this.

Gminski looked good as a rookie, his per 36 numbers were in line with his prime

His per 36 rookie numbers are in line with his actual prime but not in line with his per 36 prime.

Per 36, Gminski averaged 19 PPG and 9.5 RPG in his 6th season (26), 18.7 PPG and 10 RPG in his 7th season (27) and 18.5 PPG and 10.1 RPG in his 9th season (29).

His per 36 #'s look similar through this period.

Except for his 4th season. Other than that, yes.

Why was Gminski coming off the bench? In his rookie year the team sucked, and had a mandate to play him. The next year Larry Brown was hired and told the team he wanted to win, so he started veteran big Elmore over Gminski (and it worked, the team went from 24 wins to 44). The next few years Brown continued to improve the team, this time playing the newly acquired Darryl Dawkins over Gminski (which also worked).

Yes, I know. I did research on the Nets while I was posting it. I didn't spend 2 hours on the post without doing some research on it.

Hibbert is not being held back because of better players or something, for all intents and purposes he is it for the 5 spot on your team. He's being held back by himself. That isn't the case with guys like Gminski or Smits or Z-Ill or Laimbeer.

Hibbert is being held back by his asthma (which is likely to stay that way forever) and his weaker lower base compared to his upper body (which is likely to change in the off-season).

Plus, it isn't like Gminski didn't improve. As I noted above, he DID improve his averages (both actual and per 36) in his 6th, 7th and 9th season.

Per 36 minutes he'd scored the same in earlier years anyhow and per 36 his rebounding is consistent through his whole career (aside from this peak year), as are his blocks more or less. And he was 25, not 27 (as Hibbert will be next year, when he can apparently still break out).

The only true part of this sentence is that his rebounding and blocks were consistent per 36 aside from his peak year. The rest of it, is not true.

Kaman's highest scoring season came in the 09-10 season. He was 27 then. In actual production, he scored 18.5 PPG in 34.3 MPG. His 2nd best scoring average was 15.7 PPG. Per 36, he scored 19.4 PPG. His 2nd best scoring average was 18.4 PPG in the current season (playing 23.1 MPG off the bench while having the green light to shoot as a veteran has its advantages in this category ).

Also, I never said that I expect Hibbert to break out.

He was also still younger than Hibbert, who you expect to undergo more than a marginal change (if all Hibbert does is average an extra point and rebound per game in his peak year next year, on marginally better efficiency, then slumps back a touch, it's not going to make much different to your team.

No, I don't expect Hibbert to undergo more than a marginal change. I already stated the slight improvement that I expect so I don't understand how you got that I'm expecting a bigger change.

I said what I expect from Hibbert but I will say it again. Hibbert averaged 12.8 PPG and 8.8 RPG in the last season. I expect him to return to the 12.5 PPG and 8.5 RPG range. When he does that, I expect him to have a small improvement of 1 or 1.2 PPG and 0.8 or 1 RPG.

Is this as big of an improvement? No, it isn't. I'm not expecting him to put up 20 / 12 or anything.

I'm expecting exactly what I mentioned in my previous post. 13.5 - 14 PPG and 9 - 9.4 RPG.

You want to claim that this will not be enough? Fine. I just happen to believe that it's going to be enough or quite close to it

Camby isn't an example for anyone, because his career was subject to massive injuries that distort all his averages. Per 36 minutes he was far better at scoring in his 1st year than any future year, and far better shot blocking in his sophomore year than he'd ever be again. Camby did not "improve" later on, so much as get different amounts of minutes because of injury factors (he was also affected by things like team pace - Denver played fast, team role- NY didn't want him to do as much because the team was deep, etc. It's absurd to treat that DPOY seriously, or to suggest that he had a late prime of some sort. At any rate, his massive injuries distort everything. Hibbert has not had massive injuries, so we have no reason to think he's being held back because of them.

Marcus Camby isn't the standard, I will agree. He is a very weird case. Yes, he had massive injuries that distorted his career but somehow he managed to return from them, change as a player and stick to the league.

Yes, his best scoring year was his rookie season in Toronto. I said so in my post as well. And yes his second year was better blocking wise than his subsequent years (although his 12th season came pretty close).

But he wasn't a dominant rebounder in his first 4 years. Not in actual production, not per 36. He started to show signs from his 5th season and onwards but his best year was still his 12th. When he was 33. Hey, I'm sure that Denver's pace helped a lot.

PS: As I said earlier, Hibbert is indeed held back by an injury. His exercise-induced asthma is well-attested and is the reason that like Smits he won't ever get to play big minutes unless it's really, really necessary.

Now, this is probably never going to go away but let's not disregard it completely, shall we?

Sam Bowie's early years were derailed by injury. Absurd example. His whole career was subject to injuries. It wasn't a late prime, merely that in some years he was able to physically get up and down the court enough to show a pulse, and in others he wasn't (especially early on). Your examples are just horrid.

I didn't compare Bowie's late years in New Jersey with his injury-ridden years in Portland. I only compared them with his rookie years. I didn't claim it was a late prime or anything.

I just claimed that he happened to showcase some of his skills when he got healthy even if he was older than 26.

If anything, there are better recent examples for late development of PG's, with Nash, Billups, and to a lesser extent Conley and Parker as examples of guys developing other parts of their game later on. Though mostly for all players of all positions, you can basically see who they are by about 25 (or earlier), and after then they don't change much if at all from that basic outline.

When I mentioned Billups in that other thread you went bonkers. I wasn't going to risk it again

[Nuntius]

Your examples don't support that contention though. Things like changing your body or adjusting your game is true at every position.

Nope. The change that a big's body has to go through is much more excessive and carries more risk than a guard's.

He's played worse than last year though, so it's unclear it's helping him at all.

He has played worse than last year because while he strengthened his upper body, he didn't strengthen his lower body enough. If you see him playing, you can see that he loses his balance a lot more when he goes for a lay-up than he used to.

It's something that he can work on. In fact, he has already started working on it as his recently improved offense indicates.

he sucks at finishing

2011 - 2012: 57.5% at the rim - > http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ting/2012/

2010 - 2011: 65.1% at the rim -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ting/2011/

2009 - 2010: 60.9% at the rim -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ting/2010/

2008 - 2009: 51.2% at the rim -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ting/2009/

2012 - 2013: 48.2% at the rim -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ting/2013/

In this season, he is shooting worse at the rim than he shot in his rookie season. Something is simply not right. He doesn't suck at finishing normally. He sucks at finishing this season. That's why I'm expecting an improvement.

he has a poor feel on offense

A Center that create a shot for himself from the post doesn't not really have a poor feel on offense. A Tyson Chandler has a poor feel on offense because his only offensive skill is cutting to the basket and finish at the rim. Hibbert is not an offensive liability outside of 3 feet. Therefore, that's a ridiculous claim.

Check his shooting splits again. The lowest that his hook shot % has been since he came into the league is 54.3%. Centers who have a poor feel on offense do not tend to hit a lot of hook shots and generally do not have a back to the basket game. Hibbert does.

he makes bad decisions with the ball.

Hibbert is averaging 2 TOs in this season and 1.8 in his career.

Joakim Noah averages 2.8 TOs in this season and 1.6 in his career. Of course, Noah can be excused this season since his playing an absurdly high number of minutes (38.3 MPG) and has the responsibility to facilitate Chicago's offense in Rose's absence.

Marc Gasol is averaging 1.9 TOs in this season and 1.9 in his career.

Simply put, bigs that are both scorers and facilitators either in the elbow or in the high post tend to average more TOs than a PnR big whose sole offensive responbility is to screen and then cut hard to the basket.

It goes along with the higher Usage %.

Those aren't things him adding or losing weight will help.

Did I mention that he needs to lose weight? No. He just needs to distribute his weight better and add more muscle in his base and legs.

You should expect him to give another huge effort next contract year, one that takes a toll on him that is unsustainable beyond that year. Of course it's possible the shortened season helped too.

So, I should only expect him to perform well in a contract year?

Please. Hibbert works his ass off. He always did and he is quite likely to continue to do so.

Which doesn't matter, since it's not going to change for the better for Hibbert next year.

I explained what is going to change for the better, though

Lots of people agree with me, including most non-Pacer fans on that general board thread.

And lost of people, including most non-Pacer and non-Heat fans agree with me on that general board thread. Unless you made a new one that I somehow missed

Did you ask Simba, by the way? He is a guy with a Kobe avatar. Easy to spot. He is a Lakers fan but he has seen enough of Paul George in order to know his potential a lot better than you.

Also, not a Heat fan really, just a fan of good basketball. The Heat are champs, and even before then obviously had contender talent- they deserve the respect they earnt. You guys have not earnt or shown anything to really indicate contender status (and certainly not to being comparable to Memphis).

Every team in the league deserves respect. You have shown zero respect to the Pacers so far.

A fan of good basketball tends to respect all teams that happen to play good basketball. You're not doing this.

But hey, I don't really care. The Pacers will force you to respect them eventually with their play. It's not like your opinion matters to them either

You just have to realize something. The difference between you and a hateful troll that will jump in and say "hey, the Pacers suck, Granger is worthless, Hibbert is ****, Stephenson is a scrub etc." is only skin-deep. You are using 500 words to convey this point while he uses 20. That's the only difference. You have a serious façade but deep down you say the same things with those trolls.

[jman2585]

In his 2nd year in the NBA, Laimbeer put up 12.8 PPG, 11.3 RPG and 1.8 APG in a limited 30 game sample.

In his 4th year in the NBA, Laimbeer put up 17.3 PPG, 12.2 RPG and 1.8 APG in an 82 game sample.

In his 5th year in the NBA, Laimbeer put up 17.5 PPG, 12.4 RPG and 1.9 APG in an 82 game sample.

Isn't this improvement? Yes, it is

.

His rebounding at age 25 in his 3rd year (which you intentionally omit) was the same as his rebounding in his 4th and 5th year. As for his scoring:
1) His scoring ability didn't really change at all from his 2nd-3rd year (except being asked to shoot 1 or less 3's per game. This would be analogous to Hibbert if they had only invented the dunk 2 years ago, and Hibbert was still becoming accustomed to the concept), all that changed was in the early days of Laimbeer's career he was asked to score less (because other guys were asked to do more), and as the Pistons got a better coach, he decided it would be smart to give Laimbeer a slightly bigger role. And he was right, it made no sense for Isiah and Tripuka to be combining for 49.4 ppg in 1983... but they were. Instead of 9-10 shots a game, Laimbeer was given 12-14 shots a game, and his raw ppg went up. Big mystery solved.
2) Even if we disregard reality, and pretend Laimbeer became the player he was in his 4th year, how does that help your argument? Laimbeer was aged 26 in his 4th year and was a complete player... Hibbert is age 26 in his 5th year. He should also be a complete player.
Laimbeer is not an example for "late growth" of a player at all, even under your own analysis he was a finished product by year 4 of his career.

In his 2nd year, Smits put up 15.5 PPG and 6.2 RPG playing 29.3 MPG.

In his 7th year, Smits put up 17.9 PPG and 7.7 RPG playing 30.5 MPG.

That's a small increase in minutes but a decent increase in production. That's the improvement that I'm seeking.

Except what Smits did in his 7th year (age 28) is not really an improvement per 36 minutes on what he was doing in his 4th year (age 25), and I already said Smits looked like he finished developed by his 4th year, the only difference being how much he was played, and how big his role in the offense was.
Smits per 36 minutes, 4th year- 20.8ppg, 8.5rpg, 2.4apg, 51 FG%
Smits per 36 minutes, 7th year- 21.2ppg, 9.1rpg, 1.7apg, 52.6 FG%
And of course, his 7th year is his peak per 36 minutes (per 36 his rebounding #'s would never be this high again, and his efficiency fell off a little).
This again is not an example of a player "turning a corner" after age 26.

Ilgauskas per 36:

Rookie year: 17.2 PPG, 10.9 RPG.

5th season: 20.6 PPG, 9 RPG.

8th season: 19.2 PPG, 9.3 RPG.

His rebounding was noticeably worse, his efficiency was the highest in his rookie year, and he was actually athletic and could move up and down the court. In his rookie year he was maybe the most important player on a 47 win team he was helping carry. The Cavs then sucked after that year for a long time, and Z-Ill was given a bigger role (so of course his raw volume went up), but he never regained the athleticism (and impact) of his rookie year). His 8th season is a terrible example, because while he's putting up an extra 2 points per game, he's doing it on horrid efficiency (on a 42 win team who James was carrying). Again, a terrible example, either dishonest or misinformed.

I'm not going to respond any further to a big man as mediocre as Gminski. I covered him already. He was held back on a bench by better veterans, which prevented him getting minutes, but given what we saw per 36 and in his rookie year there's no reason to think he couldn't have performed his as mediocre early in his career as he did later, if only he was given the minutes. The team wanted to win, so he didn't get them. Is Hibbert being benched because of better guys who help the team win more? No? Then stop acting like Gminski means something. The guy didn't improve, only his opportunities did. To the extent his #'s per 36 improved it was because he was on a crap team all of a sudden, and said crap team wanted him to have a bigger role (usually with worse efficiency). A more lengthy explanation shouldn't be necessary.

Hibbert is being held back by his asthma (which is likely to stay that way forever) and his weaker lower base compared to his upper body (which is likely to change in the off-season).

His upper body has nothing to do with the things he is doing wrong on O, and he's already far bigger and more cut than most guys in his position. The problem is not that he doesn't get position, it's what he does with the ball once he gets it.

Plus, it isn't like Gminski didn't improve. As I noted above, he DID improve his averages (both actual and per 36) in his 6th, 7th and 9th season.

Wow. It seems like a longer explanation actually will be needed.
a) On bad teams someone has to score. For more information, see this man:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sri01.html
b) The raw ppg doesn't tell the whole story of how good the guy is though. Indeed, Gimski had his highest per 36 scoring at age 26 (so again, this fails as an example). His FG% was also often mediocre for a big, a sure sign of a guy who shouldn't be getting so many shots.
c) In Philly the 46 win team of 1989 featured Barkley and then a bunch of mediocre players basically. Barkley was awesome and drew alot of attention, and someone had to score (especially at the pace alot of those teams played at in the 80's), but it didn't indicate that by averaging 1.3 ppg more per 36 than his 3rd year, with the greater # of open shots Barkley generated, that Giminski had suddenly become a better player.

Also, I never said that I expect Hibbert to break out.

That's good, because it's highly unlikely given what we know of most players by age 26, after 5 years in the NBA and 4 years in college.

Camby and Bowie aren't examples of anything, and Billups had a unique career trajectory (with many reasons for his late development). Hibbert has been on the same team getting good minutes and chances, there's no reason to think he's being held back by coaches or circumstances like Billups was.

[jman2585]

You are using 500 words to convey this point while he uses 20. That's the only difference. You have a serious façade but deep down you say the same things with those trolls.

If my opinions are trolling, then the majority of fans from every team are trolling you, along with NBA commentators and the media in general, since my views are more in line with theirs than yours are. I've said plenty of nice things about the Pacers players, I can point you to them in this thread, but your projects are unrealistic and unheard of in modern NBA history really.

[Scoot McGroot]

You are using 500 words to convey this point while he uses 20. That's the only difference. You have a serious façade but deep down you say the same things with those trolls.

If my opinions are trolling, then the majority of fans from every team are trolling you, along with NBA commentators and the media in general, since my views are more in line with theirs than yours are. I've said plenty of nice things about the Pacers players, I can point you to them in this thread, but your projects are unrealistic and unheard of in modern NBA history really.

So what's your rebuild plan for the Pacers? Or did you just come here to say you love Spurs trained GMs and hate that the Pacers haven't rebuilt as you think Spurs guys have done?

I wouldn't espouse the greatness of Ferry either. For a guy who had carte Blanche and a billionaires check book to work with, he screwed the pooch and nearly killed a Cavs franchise that had rebuilt as you say is the only way and lost the best player in the game.

[jman2585]

I have no problem with the Pacers continuing to do what they're doing (and I've said that). My very first post says I think it makes some sense for the Pacers to do what they're doing, and to enjoy that.

What I am annoyed about is:
a) advocating how other teams should follow what you're doing,
b) adovcating it over proper team construction (like the Thunder), which is easier to do and more reliable, and
c) the misrepresentation that you're either a contender, or on the verge of being one, neither of which is really true.

Ferry is a whole other story, worth of a thread unto himself, but basically it was all Paxson's fault. Ferry did a decent job, he just arrived on the titanic with no real assets to work with, and managed to at least ensure the Cavs won alot of games and were a contender (something which the previous GM hadn't helped with). But even if that weren't the case:
a) pointing to a team doing any model badly doesn't invalidate that model, and
b) Ferry didn't to build the team the way the Thunder did, he got there with a team who couldn't tank (because Lebron would have left in his first free agency period).

[Gremz]

There are quite a few Pacers posters in this thread who haven't suggested either a) or b).

And really, to say we're not on the verge of being a contender is a bit much. We were a mediocre lotto team before David West and George Hill got here, which was a solid use of cap space and a nice trade for us. Now if a similar move can be made yet again, then we're much closer than you're giving us credit for. I don't expect another great move to simply appear out of nowhere, but please give the Pacers front office some credit where it's due. Once again, there are guys employed for good reason to do their jobs and make this business more appeasing to the owners.

Whenever you're not the one either employed to to a job or are the owner spending the bucks, your view is always a little skewed.

I don't like to use the phrase clutching at straws, but you're giving me little choice here....

[Nuntius]

If my opinions are trolling, then the majority of fans from every team are trolling you, along with NBA commentators and the media in general, since my views are more in line with theirs than yours are. I've said plenty of nice things about the Pacers players, I can point you to them in this thread, but your projects are unrealistic and unheard of in modern NBA history really.

You see, there is a difference between those people and you. Those people simply express their opinions. They are allowed to have an opinion just like you. But they don't try to push their opinions down our throats. That's the distinctive difference.

By the way, the majority of fans from every team, the NBA and the media have shown a lot more respect towards the Pacers than you. Most analysts conider us the biggest threat to the Heat currently and the majority of us has us pegged as the second best team in the East.

See here -> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/5-o ... ayoff-odds

5 out of 5 ESPN analysts consider us the 2nd best team in the East in the above article.

We were #4 in ESPN's Power Rankings in the last week and we are #5 currently.

Take a look at Hollinger's Playoff Odds as well -> http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

95.4% chance to win our Division, 22.7% chance to make the Finals, 6.7% chance to win the NBA Championship.

You can find Hollinger's playoff prediction formula here -> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... tor-081119

Thing is that opposing team fans and the media have started to respect the Pacers this season.

See some recent threads in the GB.

When will Miami's streak end?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1237384

Second best team in the East?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1236867

Take a look at the polls.

In the first thread, 41 out of 102 voters voted for the Pacers. That 40% is by far the plurality in this particular poll. None of the above comes second with 22% of the votes, Boston is 3rd with 13% of the votes and Milwaukee is 4th with 9% of the votes.

In the second thread, 109 out of 196 voters voted for the Pacers. That's a 56% plurality. In fact, it's both a plurality and a majority. That's how big the difference is. The New York Knicks are 2nd with 36 votes (19% of the votes).

Thing is, that the Pacers have commanded respect this season. They have worked their ass off and they have produced result. Most commentators, analysts and fans of opposing teams have several good things to say about the Pacers and consider them a strong team.

So, no. Most people certainly do NOT share your opinion that the Pacers suck and should blow it up.