The Official Indiana Pacers Thread

#151
#151
Granger out for 3 months.

And there goes the season...

Gerald Green shouldn't be starting in his place, he should be back in d-league from what he has shown thus far.
 
#152
#152
FWIW, advanced metrics show that Indiana will not really suffer without him. Wins produced shows that if he misses 30 games, they lose just 2 extra game because he wasn't there.

They won't do as well, but this definitely isn't going to kill their season.
 
#153
#153
No real reason to expect they won't be a playoff team again this year. I'd be surprised if the get as high as the 3 seed they got last year though.
 
#154
#154
n_huffhines said:
FWIW, advanced metrics show that Indiana will not really suffer without him. Wins produced shows that if he misses 30 games, they lose just 2 extra game because he wasn't there.

They won't do as well, but this definitely isn't going to kill their season.
Click to expand...

That system sounds awful then because the offense might be the worst in the NBA without Granger.

They were a 3 seed last year and have already lost to the Bobcats/Kings this year. Also lucked out in beating the Raptors. The Pacers being without their best player that averages 20 points and is the only player on the team that can consistently make 3's besides maybe George Hill will cost them more than 2 games. I'm pretty sure he's been ranking around the top 10 for clutch players in the NBA the past few seasons.

Hey may not be Durant or Lebron but sorry, he's easily the best Pacer and they'll lose a lot more than 2 games than they would without him. In fact, I think the Pacers record without him is something like 22-30. So...
 
#155
#155
TOP said:
That system sounds awful then because the offense might be the worst in the NBA without Granger.

They were a 3 seed last year and have already lost to the Bobcats/Kings this year. Also lucked out in beating the Raptors. The Pacers being without their best player that averages 20 points and is the only player on the team that can consistently make 3's besides maybe George Hill will cost them more than 2 games. I'm pretty sure he's been ranking around the top 10 for clutch players in the NBA the past few seasons.

Hey may not be Durant or Lebron but sorry, he's easily the best Pacer and they'll lose a lot more than 2 games than they would without him. In fact, I think the Pacers record without him is something like 22-30. So...
Click to expand...

Didn't lose to the Kings. It took overtime, but they did actually win that game. Don't get too worked up over the November results anyway. As of right now, the Lakers are tied for the worst record in the Western Conference. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case in April. It's a LONG season. Granger will be back if they make the playoffs, and if they're worth anything can still make a run with the full squad as long as they get a seat at the table.
 
#156
#156
Time will tell. Like you said they were off to a bad start. With or without Granger I expect them to be about .500 this year.

FWIW, since Granger was drafted the Pacers are 22-25 without him. A win% of .468 which is almost exactly the same as his career win% of .465 (237-273)
 
#158
#158
Pacers outscored 24-9 in the 4th quarter and lose 89-86.

And that's why Granger is so important. There's no way the loss of him is only a 2 game difference. No way...
 
#159
#159
bleedorange0037 said:
Didn't lose to the Kings. It took overtime, but they did actually win that game. Don't get too worked up over the November results anyway. As of right now, the Lakers are tied for the worst record in the Western Conference. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case in April. It's a LONG season. Granger will be back if they make the playoffs, and if they're worth anything can still make a run with the full squad as long as they get a seat at the table.
Click to expand...

You're right, they beat the Kings. They lost to the Spurs which wouldn't be a bad loss if it wasn't for losing by 22.
 
#160
#160
n_huffhines said:
Time will tell. Like you said they were off to a bad start. With or without Granger I expect them to be about .500 this year.

FWIW, since Granger was drafted the Pacers are 22-25 without him. A win% of .468 which is almost exactly the same as his career win% of .465 (237-273)
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the record before the season started? If so, you can add 2-3 this season without him.

And until recently, the team surrounding him was bad. Losing with him in the past wasn't his fault. Jim O'brien was a terrible coach, as you saw the team immediately improve when he was fired. And he was playing with guys like Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, TJ Ford... that's pretty bad.

Granger isn't a superstar but he's about as good of player as you're going to get without being one. He does a little bit of everything, is 6'8, clutch etc. He's really important to this team and I view him as the best player on it.

So far, Roy Hibbert isn't putting up numbers that reflect a max player and that's worrisome.
 
#162
#162
TOP said:
Pacers outscored 24-9 in the 4th quarter and lose 89-86.

And that's why Granger is so important. There's no way the loss of him is only a 2 game difference. No way...
Click to expand...

Except they only lost by 3 on the road to a tough opponent. Granger is 0-10 @ Atlanta in the last 10 outings there.
 
Last edited:
#163
#163
n_huffhines said:
Except they only lost by 3 on the road to a tough opponent. Maybe their best performance of the season.
Click to expand...

They only lost by 3 but I mentioned how bad their offense is without Granger and how clutch he is. They scored 86 points and only scored 9 in the 4th quarter. Heck, they only scored 89 against the Bobcats. The other two teams that played the Bobcats scored 126 and 117. Granger is easily the Pacers best offensive player and the offense has been awful without him. With this current roster, the difference with and without him is going to be a .500 team(maybe worse) and competing for the division/a top 3 seed.

Since you're the stat guy, you'd probably find it before me but weren't the Pacers the best starting unit in the league last season? I believe it was Bill Simmons who did an article about it. If that's the case and Granger is the best player(which he is), that's a huge blow. The teams bench was what brought them down last season and it's even worse this season. I watched like 50+ of the Pacers regular season games last year and all of their playoff games. And even though Granger had one of his worst seasons, I'm certain the difference between him and no him is going from finishing with the 5th best record in the NBA to being a .500 team. He brings so much to the table including intensity and leadership. He's the undisputed team leader and it shows without him.
 
#164
#164
n_huffhines said:
Except they only lost by 3 on the road to a tough opponent. Granger is 0-10 @ Atlanta in the last 10 outings there.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with scoring 9 points in the 4th quarter and Granger being one of the most clutch players currently in the NBA during the 4th quarter?

And Atlanta is a different team this season. No Joe Johnson. Just because he's 0-10 at Atlanta, doesn't mean anything. You're using one team on the road to argue how unimportant Granger is?

You're underestimating how important he is to this team. I'd bet money they're 4-1 with him this season instead of 2-3 without him.
 
#165
#165
TOP said:
Pacers outscored 24-9 in the 4th quarter and lose 89-86.

And that's why Granger is so important. There's no way the loss of him is only a 2 game difference. No way...
Click to expand...

I don't know a whole lot about the advanced basketball metrics. However, I'd tend to agree with you that his absence will cost them more than 2 games. Still, if he's back by January that also shouldn't keep them out of the playoffs.
 
#166
#166
bleedorange0037 said:
I don't know a whole lot about the advanced basketball metrics. However, I'd tend to agree with you that his absence will cost them more than 2 games. Still, if he's back by January that also shouldn't keep them out of the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I think we'll make the playoffs but not having homecourt advantage at any point would kind of stink. So would playing the Heat in the first round. If the Heat are going to get knocked out, I would crap bricks if it's the first round.
 
#167
#167
TOP said:
What does that have to do with scoring 9 points in the 4th quarter and Granger being one of the most clutch players currently in the NBA during the 4th quarter?

And Atlanta is a different team this season. No Joe Johnson. Just because he's 0-10 at Atlanta, doesn't mean anything. You're using one team on the road to argue how unimportant Granger is?

You're underestimating how important he is to this team. I'd bet money they're 4-1 with him this season instead of 2-3 without him.
Click to expand...

Because you aren't guaranteed the same result through the first 3 quarters if you insert Granger into the lineup. What if he has one of his patented 30% shooting nights and they are down by 10 going into the 4th quarter?
 
#168
#168
TOP said:
What does that have to do with scoring 9 points in the 4th quarter and Granger being one of the most clutch players currently in the NBA during the 4th quarter?

And Atlanta is a different team this season. No Joe Johnson. Just because he's 0-10 at Atlanta, doesn't mean anything. You're using one team on the road to argue how unimportant Granger is?

You're underestimating how important he is to this team. I'd bet money they're 4-1 with him this season instead of 2-3 without him.
Click to expand...

BTW, Atlanta is better than they were last year. They won't miss JJ because they picked up Louis Williams and Kyle Korver. Horford is healthy this season. They will end up with a better record than last year.
 
#170
#170
I'm sorry dude but this isn't moneyball. Without actually watching the games, I just can't view ywhat you say as legit. You might know about the teams and players you actually watch but I can tell your view of the Pacers just by looking at digits is very wrong.

The Pacers just lost by 2 to the T'wolves without Love, Rubio and Barea. We're talking about a team that had the 5th best record in the NBA last season and returned all of their starters losing to two of the worst teams in the NBA already. Your theory that Granger is only worth two more wins is 100% inaccurate.

Also, you used one season, his worst season. The way you use stats is really flawed. Trying to write off Granger who is hands down the teams best player as if he doesn't make the team much better is just flat out wrong.

Beat the Raptors by 2.
Beat the Kings in double OT.
Lost to the Bobcats by 1.
Lost to the Timberwolves by 2.
Lost to the Hawks by 3.

Those would all be wins with Granger and probably by double digits. Yes, he is that important to the team and unless you actually watch the games, I don't know how you'd know. Games aren't won on paper.

If you're going to say Granger was best in the 1st and 3rd quarter, it doesn't mean he couldn't still be good in the 4th quarter. And again, that's one season. Or you brought up losing in Atlanta as if it has some sort of bearing on the game that was played the other night. Somehow, that means Danny Granger doesn't make up a 3 point difference because he's lost there before. If it worked like that, the Giants wouldn't have beat the Patriots. I mean, the Patriots beat the Giants in week 17, 1 month before the Super Bowl so I guess the Patriots were automatically going to win again.

The idea that Granger was ever only the difference between two games already made using whatever stats/system you use look silly. 6 games into the season and I'm pretty sure they've already lost 3 games without him that they would have won with him.
 
#171
#171
FWIW, wins produced, my favorite stat, says the T-Wolves are better than the Pacers this year. Barea sucks, but the T-Wolves picked up AK47, Roy, and Budinger. All quality pickups. Pekovic is very underrated.

The season is young, and the sample size is small. If he misses the first 30 games, expect them to win 12-14 of those. When he gets back expect them to go about 26-26. Time will tell.
 
#172
#172
Pacers lost another game by 2 points to the Raptors. They only scored 72 points... those losses without Granger are really starting to add up.
 
#173
#173
TOP, your Pacers are 10-10! Surprised you're not in this forum jumping for joy. Their next 10 games on their schedule are pretty favorable, so it looks like they'll do better than my 14-16 prediction without Granger.
 
#174
#174
Nice comeback win today.

Does anybody have any idea when Granger might be returning? The Pacers have managed to finish out 2012 at 18-13 and only 3.5 games out of first place, and once Granger gets back they should only continue to get better.

It looks like huffhines and his advanced metrics weren't too far off base. Making the argument that Granger's absence cost the Pacers much more than 2 games would be to make the argument that the Pacers are the best team in the Eastern Conference. I don't think that's the case. Hopefully they'll hold on and end up with home court in the first round, and if Atlanta comes back to the pack a bit, maybe grab the 3rd seed. That could potentially set up a nice little trip down memory lane if they met the Knicks in the second round.
 
#175
#175
I don't know... Hibbert has been pretty bad this season and an ESPN analyst had an article at the end of last season about the Pacers starters being the best starting unit in the NBA. With George Hill and David West being in their first season, Hill taking over late in the season as starter and West coming off injury, I think the Pacers should have been better this year than last year and with more time to gel. Even Paul George has been a lot better. If you add in Granger, I don't see why the Pacers couldn't have improved on the 5th best record in the NBA from the past season. Granger is still worth a lot more than 2 games imo. He's the undisputed leader of the leader, can actually shot 3's unlike Stephenson etc. When he's back to full health, the Pacers should be really dangerous. Everyone benefited from being out except Hibbert. George/Stephenson got more of a chance to develop and Hill/West got more of a chance to impose their will and take over games. Granger is really underrated and I don't agree with the idea that our best player is the difference between 2 games. That would be like Josh Smith only being the difference two games for the Hawks or Angre Iduodala having only been the difference between two games for the Sixers in the past. I believe Granger is on par with them and they're all more valuable than two games.

If Hibbert ever breaks out of his slump and Granger gets back to full health, Pacers could be really dangerous. West, PG and Hill have been awesome. It's easy to see they're playing better than they did last season. I always thought the team was going to improve from last season so it not looking like there has been a big drop off without Granger is simply because everyone has gotten better which they were bound to do. Again, West was coming off an ACL tear and 1st year with the team. George Hill's 1st year with the team and he didn't take over as starter until the end of the season. Paul George is only 22 and in his third season. The Pacers finishing 5th last season was impressive and there was no reason to believe they couldn't be better this season.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top