This team is a better version of the 2013 Pacers

[smokeablount]

Since when is Rozier better than Hill.  That is just nonsense. And Tatum = George. More nonsense

Rozier has been statistically better than Hill that year.

And Tatum has been statistically comparable to George

they aren't better though. The Pacers played at a very slow pace. They scored less 95 ppg on the season (their differential was +4).  The C's this year scored 10 ppg more with a similar +4 differential.  Just a completely different style of play leading to vastly different stats.  George Hill was better than Rozier on  both ends of the floor.

Even allowing for pace, during the playoffs

George Hill averaged 15, 4, and 4 with 1 steal on 40%, 36%, and 83% shooting splits.
Terry Rozier averaged 18, 6, and 6 with 1 steal on 42%, 40%, and 83% shooting splits.

When Hill was on the floor in those playoffs, the Pacers had a 111 offensive rating and 106 defensive rating.

When Rozier was on the floor in these playoffs, the Cs have a 122 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating.

The eye test has told me he is far more dynamic of a player than Hill every was, and the stats show that he is better and more efficient, even allowing for pace.

Sure and the Pacers ran their offense through Paul George, got the ball to Hibbert and West in the paint, etc.  Hill was the 4th option on offense that year, Rozier is a very close 2nd to Tatum.  Very difficult to compare stats between players with vastly different roles and vastly different team makeups.  Hill was 26 and in his 5th year of significant playing time.  Rozier is 23 in his 3rd year and it wasn't till this year that even started a game.  I suspect Rozier will end up with both a higher peak and a better overall career than Hill, but he isn't there yet and isn't as good as Hill was in Indiana.

Okay.  So by that logic, we can't say that Paul George was better than Tatum, can we?  I mean Tatum is scoring almost 19 a game, 20+ in round 2, but we aren't running the entire offense thru him and relying on him as a playmaker. 

If we can't say Rozier is better than Hill when the stats clearly favor TRoz, and it's because their roles are different, then we can't say George was better than Tatum either.

[Moranis]

Since when is Rozier better than Hill.  That is just nonsense. And Tatum = George. More nonsense

Rozier has been statistically better than Hill that year.

And Tatum has been statistically comparable to George

they aren't better though. The Pacers played at a very slow pace. They scored less 95 ppg on the season (their differential was +4).  The C's this year scored 10 ppg more with a similar +4 differential.  Just a completely different style of play leading to vastly different stats.  George Hill was better than Rozier on  both ends of the floor.

Even allowing for pace, during the playoffs

George Hill averaged 15, 4, and 4 with 1 steal on 40%, 36%, and 83% shooting splits.
Terry Rozier averaged 18, 6, and 6 with 1 steal on 42%, 40%, and 83% shooting splits.

When Hill was on the floor in those playoffs, the Pacers had a 111 offensive rating and 106 defensive rating.

When Rozier was on the floor in these playoffs, the Cs have a 122 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating.

The eye test has told me he is far more dynamic of a player than Hill every was, and the stats show that he is better and more efficient, even allowing for pace.

Sure and the Pacers ran their offense through Paul George, got the ball to Hibbert and West in the paint, etc.  Hill was the 4th option on offense that year, Rozier is a very close 2nd to Tatum.  Very difficult to compare stats between players with vastly different roles and vastly different team makeups.  Hill was 26 and in his 5th year of significant playing time.  Rozier is 23 in his 3rd year and it wasn't till this year that even started a game.  I suspect Rozier will end up with both a higher peak and a better overall career than Hill, but he isn't there yet and isn't as good as Hill was in Indiana.

Okay.  So by that logic, we can't say that Paul George was better than Tatum, can we?  I mean Tatum is scoring almost 19 a game, 20+ in round 2, but we aren't running the entire offense thru him and relying on him as a playmaker. 

If we can't say Rozier is better than Hill when the stats clearly favor TRoz, and it's because their roles are different, then we can't say George was better than Tatum either.

except you know for the years before that, the per possession numbers, etc.  Paul George was better in 2013 than Jayson Tatum is in 2018.  Only in this highly homerish board is it even being discussed.

[Beat LA]

No. Just no, lol.

[colincb]

Don't think you can compare the stats directly given that teams on average are hoisting 45+% more 3-point FGs. That appears to affect shooting, rebounding, and turnover percentages probably due to the spacing of teams' defenses in the era of 3-ball.  Instead, looking at how both teams ranked may be the best indicator of how they stack up given the way the game was played in both eras.

   NBA Rank
   Total Shooting %
BOS   14
IND   22
   
   Total Rebounds
BOS   7
IND   1
   
   TOV%
BOS   15
IND   27
   
   OPP TOV%
BOS   15
IND   26
   
   OPP eFG%
BOS   2
IND   1

Pacers were below average shooters, ball-handlers, and creators of turnovers. Cs are average in all those categories. Pacers were elite rebounders compared to the Cs who are above average. Both teams were elite defenders against opponent's shooters. Would give the edge to the Cs overall, especially because of the shooting, without arguing about player A vs player B.

[smokeablount]

Since when is Rozier better than Hill.  That is just nonsense. And Tatum = George. More nonsense

Rozier has been statistically better than Hill that year.

And Tatum has been statistically comparable to George

they aren't better though. The Pacers played at a very slow pace. They scored less 95 ppg on the season (their differential was +4).  The C's this year scored 10 ppg more with a similar +4 differential.  Just a completely different style of play leading to vastly different stats.  George Hill was better than Rozier on  both ends of the floor.

Even allowing for pace, during the playoffs

George Hill averaged 15, 4, and 4 with 1 steal on 40%, 36%, and 83% shooting splits.
Terry Rozier averaged 18, 6, and 6 with 1 steal on 42%, 40%, and 83% shooting splits.

When Hill was on the floor in those playoffs, the Pacers had a 111 offensive rating and 106 defensive rating.

When Rozier was on the floor in these playoffs, the Cs have a 122 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating.

The eye test has told me he is far more dynamic of a player than Hill every was, and the stats show that he is better and more efficient, even allowing for pace.

Sure and the Pacers ran their offense through Paul George, got the ball to Hibbert and West in the paint, etc.  Hill was the 4th option on offense that year, Rozier is a very close 2nd to Tatum.  Very difficult to compare stats between players with vastly different roles and vastly different team makeups.  Hill was 26 and in his 5th year of significant playing time.  Rozier is 23 in his 3rd year and it wasn't till this year that even started a game.  I suspect Rozier will end up with both a higher peak and a better overall career than Hill, but he isn't there yet and isn't as good as Hill was in Indiana.

Okay.  So by that logic, we can't say that Paul George was better than Tatum, can we?  I mean Tatum is scoring almost 19 a game, 20+ in round 2, but we aren't running the entire offense thru him and relying on him as a playmaker. 

If we can't say Rozier is better than Hill when the stats clearly favor TRoz, and it's because their roles are different, then we can't say George was better than Tatum either.

except you know for the years before that, the per possession numbers, etc.  Paul George was better in 2013 than Jayson Tatum is in 2018.  Only in this highly homerish board is it even being discussed.

Okay.  And every shred of evidence we have says that Terry Rozier as a starter is better than George Hill as a starter, yet you refuse to admit it.  But at least you partially admit to trolling a homerish board, which all fan boards tend to be.  Check out the RealGM Sixers forum thread about the Celtics series, especially before it starts, for some hilarity.

[blink]

Since when is Rozier better than Hill.  That is just nonsense. And Tatum = George. More nonsense

Rozier has been statistically better than Hill that year.

And Tatum has been statistically comparable to George

they aren't better though. The Pacers played at a very slow pace. They scored less 95 ppg on the season (their differential was +4).  The C's this year scored 10 ppg more with a similar +4 differential.  Just a completely different style of play leading to vastly different stats.  George Hill was better than Rozier on  both ends of the floor.

Even allowing for pace, during the playoffs

George Hill averaged 15, 4, and 4 with 1 steal on 40%, 36%, and 83% shooting splits.
Terry Rozier averaged 18, 6, and 6 with 1 steal on 42%, 40%, and 83% shooting splits.

When Hill was on the floor in those playoffs, the Pacers had a 111 offensive rating and 106 defensive rating.

When Rozier was on the floor in these playoffs, the Cs have a 122 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating.

The eye test has told me he is far more dynamic of a player than Hill every was, and the stats show that he is better and more efficient, even allowing for pace.

Sure and the Pacers ran their offense through Paul George, got the ball to Hibbert and West in the paint, etc.  Hill was the 4th option on offense that year, Rozier is a very close 2nd to Tatum.  Very difficult to compare stats between players with vastly different roles and vastly different team makeups.  Hill was 26 and in his 5th year of significant playing time.  Rozier is 23 in his 3rd year and it wasn't till this year that even started a game.  I suspect Rozier will end up with both a higher peak and a better overall career than Hill, but he isn't there yet and isn't as good as Hill was in Indiana.

Okay.  So by that logic, we can't say that Paul George was better than Tatum, can we?  I mean Tatum is scoring almost 19 a game, 20+ in round 2, but we aren't running the entire offense thru him and relying on him as a playmaker. 

If we can't say Rozier is better than Hill when the stats clearly favor TRoz, and it's because their roles are different, then we can't say George was better than Tatum either.

except you know for the years before that, the per possession numbers, etc.  Paul George was better in 2013 than Jayson Tatum is in 2018.  Only in this highly homerish board is it even being discussed.

I will say that I think Paul George was probably better in the 2013 playoffs than Tatum has been in the 2018 playoffs.  I am not sure how much better, probably not by a whole lot.  But no way it is homerish to consider it.  Even going by the eye test only Tatum has been fantastic, almost shockingly so as a rookie in his first playoffs.

But I am not sold that it is even a valid comparison.  Tatum is 20 years old, and a rookie putting up numbers that compare against PG when he was in his 3rd year, and 3rd playoffs.  When you factor that in, it doesn't really seem valid. 

It might make more sense to compare 2018 JT against 2012 PG as those years they are closer in age, and closer in minutes played / games played in the playoffs.  In that comparison, it isn't even close. Tatum by a mile.

Lets see how Tatum does in the ECF once the pressure is cranked up even more.  Probably will tell us more about where he is at.