Larry Legend screwed up

[Fafnir]

I still don't think he screwed anything up. The move for Scola was a bad one, but Plumlee/Hansborough aren't making a huge difference on what has happened to this team.

The Evan Turner move didn't work either, but I don't buy the chemistry explanation. Their decline started before the move in January.

In fact if you just do a simple linear trendline they were trending downwards towards being a +1.0 differential team by the end of the season before the trade. That's around Atlanta/Charlotte's level.

They ended up playing around a -2.0 team after the trade, so clearly problems got even worse than they were trending after the trade deadline. But given their decline started well before I don't think the deadline move caused it.

[Roy H.]

.

The Evan Turner move didn't work either, but I don't buy the chemistry explanation. Their decline started before the move in January.

What are you basing this on?

I'm curious, because I see the claim constantly.  They were winning 70% of their games for the month prior to the trade, and the month prior to that, as well.  After the trade, they went into a very deep decline, where they were below .500 and were winning almost exclusively against lottery teams.

I mean, certainly they declined from the team that started the season 16-1.  Any team is going to regress a bit.  However, after that decline they still managed to play at a .700 pace, and they were beating quality opponents.  After the trade, the bottom fell out.

[D.o.s.]

Because they played about a zillion more minutes than any other group of starters combined with the fact that -- Paul George went beyond cold, Hibbert and Stephenson regressed, West and Scola suffered rigor mortiis all while they were still believing their own hype.

[Fafnir]

.

The Evan Turner move didn't work either, but I don't buy the chemistry explanation. Their decline started before the move in January.

What are you basing this on?

I'm curious, because I see the claim constantly.  They were winning 70% of their games for the month prior to the trade, and the month prior to that, as well.  After the trade, they went into a very deep decline, where they were below .500 and were winning almost exclusively against lottery teams.

I mean, certainly they declined from the team that started the season 16-1.  Any team is going to regress a bit.  However, after that decline they still managed to play at a .700 pace, and they were beating quality opponents.  After the trade, the bottom fell out.

I'm basing it on the game logs of the Pacers ORTG and DRTG, using those two to calculate their efficiency differential on a game by game basis.

If you look at the overall season body of work the decline is clear, and even when you truncate the data to before the trade deadline the decline is pretty striking.

I think they saw the bottom starting to fall out and made a move. The move made things worse because Evan Turner has been a disaster for them on the court. But he only played 21 mpg, not enough to explain how far they've fallen or why they started having issues in January.

Edit: One thing to remember is that their initial schedule was pretty soft. I wish I had a decent way to adjusted efficiency differential based on schedule.

[Fred Roberts]

Anybody know why Bynum is sitting?

Hibbert was so god awful at the outset of this series, that I thought Vogel should give Bynum some minutes and see if he could make an impact. Sorry he's in street clothes. Now, the Pacers could be on the way out of the playoffs all together. [dang].

This series has really been shocking. ATL has played way tougher defense, way better offense. IND has struggled doing everything. 

[Fafnir]

If Hibbert isn't quick enough or skilled enough to hang with Atlanta, then Bynum would be even worse.

[Donoghus]

I don't believe they're dead.....yet.

However, I'm not sure I can recall another team in the four major sports, nevermind NBA, that fell off the cliff this quick. 

Better teams have lost 7 game seasons for a variety of reasons but this slide started well before the playoffs and has gone on for a couple of months. Considering how they came out of the gate and how they were looking early on, its quick remarkable.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

I reckon the match up issues at play here are also being understated. Maybe the Pacers got so wrapped up in matching up to the heat they forgot to plug their own weaknesses.

[Mr October]

I don't believe they're dead.....yet.

However, I'm not sure I can recall another team in the four major sports, nevermind NBA, that fell off the cliff this quick. 

Better teams have lost 7 game seasons for a variety of reasons but this slide started well before the playoffs and has gone on for a couple of months. Considering how they came out of the gate and how they were looking early on, its quick remarkable.

I am beginning to buy the theory that they were never as good as their early record suggested. They had a soft schedule, and just so happened to be playing really hot to take advantage of the situation.

Then their half season of success caught up with them. Lance Stephenson in particular was doing too much. Maybe year in and year out this is just a nice / mediocre 50 win team. We will see.

[Moranis]

The Pacers do not have a #1 go to scorer.  George hasn't quite reached that level and he may never get there.  And outside of George they have a bunch of #3/#4 scorers (West is no longer a #2/3 scorer).  That is why they made the move for Turner because despite his flaws he has real #2 scorer potential and that is real need for them.  They have virtually no one to fall back on when times get tough and they need a basket.  They also don't have any super ball handlers that can make things happen dribbling or passing.  They have a bunch of real nice players and a solid overall team, but George is a tier below elite and Hibbert's run last year was clearly a fluke.  They need a major upgrade or two.  We have this Westbrook thread going on here, but Westbrook is exactly the type of player Indiana needs.  A real times are tough take it to the hole and score player.  Someone who can create his own shot from anywhere on the floor and who has the stones to take the shot with confidence.

[Who]

Paul George has been a disappointment over the last couple of months. It looked like he was ready to make that leap offensively this season but he has just trailed off as the season has gone on.

Maybe next year.

[RJ87]

Paul George has been a disappointment over the last couple of months. It looked like he was ready to make that leap offensively this season but he has just trailed off as the season has gone on.

Maybe next year.

Eh, I think PG has been pretty good this postseason - 22.6pts, 11.2rbs, 5.2asts, and 2.8stls on .476 FG/.515 3FG /.786 FT shooting. That's actually more than pretty good.

The team's biggest issue is that they've gotten nothing from Hibbert. Credit to the Hawks for completely taking him out of the series, but he really hasn't made an effort to step up. I've been really disappointed with how he's played and how he's handled himself. He pouts when he doesn't get enough touches, his body language can be really bad at times and he doesn't make the same effort on the defensive end. The playoffs aren't the right time for that. At some point, you have to put personal stats aside and be about the team, Hibbert's not there yet and it's killing them this postseason.

[ScoobyDoo]

I think bringing Andrew Bynum anywhere near a basketball team is a recipe for a complete disaster. I understand the intrigue (a seven foot banger for a playoff run, etc.) but couldn't understand the move.

If there was some sort of weird draft lottery where every team had to take in one player at the behest of the league and Bynum landed with me, I would call Adam Silver and ask if I could give $1,000,000.00 to some charity in order to keep Bynum away  from my team. Why anyone would ever sign that guy is beyond belief. Not only is he a complete knucklehead with zero character on the basketball court, he's also made of glass.

[D.o.s.]

I think bringing Andrew Bynum anywhere near a basketball team is a recipe for a complete disaster. I understand the intrigue (a seven foot banger for a playoff run, etc.) but couldn't understand the move.

If there was some sort of weird draft lottery where every team had to take in one player at the behest of the league and Bynum landed with me, I would call Adam Silver and ask if I could give $1,000,000.00 to some charity in order to keep Bynum away  from my team. Why anyone would ever sign that guy is beyond belief. Not only is he a complete knucklehead with zero character on the basketball court, he's also made of glass.

Maybe because he's far and away the most successful player from the 2005 draft? After all, He's the only player from that draft class to be a significant contributor to an NBA champion. There's a whole bunch of stock put into 'knowing how to win', and he does -- indisputably.

 The Pacers problems are significantly deeper than Andrew Bynum -- especially if the Andrew Bynum signing was the reason they fell apart.

[LarBrd33]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?