Spurs vs Pacers - Unbiased Detailed Breakdown

[ChumpDumper]

You called Jonathan Bender a "solid vet."

[The Artest Factor]

Because numbers are the sole measure of a player's effectiveness? Maybe Pop needs to concoct some Carlisle-esque bogus defensive stats and then you'll show the dude the respect he deserves.

Oh wait, I forgot, Pop doesn't do that juvenile crap.

I never said numbers are the sole measure of a players effectiveness. But when a player is so below average in production, you have to take notice. I'm befuddled how the Spurs have won 3 championships with this guy starting. i guess it just shows you how down the NBA has been as a whole in between the Bulls dynasty breakup and the Shaq/Kobe drama.

Wow, that's the worst analogy I've ever seen. You've got the order and positions all wrong.

Props to your entertainment value.

Not really.
Stackhouse is a slightly better scorer than Manu.
Parker is a slightly better scorer than Tinsley.

Manu has a better overall game than Stackhouse.
Tinsley has a better overall game than Parker.

It all checks out ok to me.

Care to explain what your problem with it is?

[picnroll]

You're arguing with the widely recognized stupidest poster on RealGM's message board. Good luck

[ChumpDumper]

Care to explain what your problem with it is?

Your problem is you can't read.

"Solid vet."

[Phenomanul]

He is eluding the question or rather his perception that Manu is "soft"....

Manu was the grit and grind of last year's championship squad.... You go ahead and think Manu is soft and can be pushed around....

Oh yeah Artest might have to break one of Manu's ribs like he did when he couldn't guard an MJ on decline.

That's really the only way he will force a 20-30 FG% on Manu... Manu can get his when he wants them...

And about Bowen's bad game... three times he has shutdown Kobe and outscored him... Artest avoids having to guard other team's elite players to puff up his baloney stats.... Bowen ALWAYS guards the other teams' best perimeter player... ALWAYS.

[infinite styles]

This has to be the funniest that I have read in a while. You claim to be an expert but base your facts solely on stats. But then come back and say that you don't when somebody questions you about intangibles and you come back with the notion that you also look at intangables but stats are the main focus. Wow you back track more than Bill Walton broadcasting the Finals. With all these "hardcore statistics" I'm suprised that ESPN hasn't offered you a show along side Stephen A. and Woody Paige. This is hilarious man your more of a homer then you want to give yourself credit for. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! SMH in disgust.

[Duff McCartney]

There's a reason Dallas cut him while keeping Tariq Abdul-Wahad.

Yeah...51 million dollars over a partially guaranteed contract. Please....you're a tool man.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Pacer fans are deluded imo, they think they will come out of the east and beat us in the finals this year, just like last year, i dont care if you have a full team this year, dont make stupid threads like you guys are goin to make the finals and beatin sum western team, put that crackpipe down b4 it gives you internal damage.

[vanvannen]

There is no way you wrote that load of crap for real. I really hope you are having a good time, otherwise it's just lame.
I know I am. This is so damn ridiculous is hilarious.
Thank you for your post, dude.

[Dex]

I stopped when you gave the edge to Tinsley. Have you ever seen the two play against each other? Parker owns him.

Ditto.

I have better things to do with my four minutes. Like bang my head against the wall.

[mando6599]

Here's my honest match-up by match-up of the Pacers and the Spurs. I think the Spurs are the older, more experienced team. However I think Indiana is clearly the more talented team, as their starting lineup mops the floor with San Antonios, and their also a much younger team which means they'll only get better whereas the Spurs are on a rapid decline.




Spurs' Bench vs Pacers' Bench
This one's a toughie. Spurs have the more expierenced bench, but I could make a reasonable case that their bench is more washed up than New Orleans. Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Nick Van Exel, Bruce Bowen - nothing really impressive there, and every player listed is on their last legs. The Pacers bench is so much younger and fresher. Fred Jones was the saving grace of Indiana's season last year. He's got starters talent. Then there's Sarunas Jasikevicius, who was the uninamous "best player not in the NBA" before the Pacers signed him back in July. Then there's Danny Granger, a legitimate top-5 talent in this past draft. He was the best player in college basketball last season, bar none. Then there's the best rookie center from last season, David Harrison, who was #2 in the NBA in FG% and #8 in Blocks per48. He could be a legitimate future All-Star at center in the East. Then there's such solid vets as Austin Croshere, Scot Pollard, Anthony Johnson, Jonathan Bender etc.
Winner: Tie. Spurs have the "name" players, albeit very old hasbeen "name" players. Pacers have the younger and IMO more talented group off the bench. This one could go either way, but if either Saras, Granger, or Harrison live up to their hype/potential, then the Pacers win this easily.


Spurs' Greg Popovich vs Pacers' Rick Carlisle
Rick Carlisle has been the NBA's best coach the past 4 seasons. From leading a team of Chucky Atkins, Jerry Stackhouse, Michael Curry, Ben Wallace, and Cliff Robinson to 50 wins and a trip to round 2 of the playoffs, to leading a destroyed Pacers team to 46 wins and a game 6 of round 2 vs the defending champion Pistons. Noones done more with less than Rick Carlisle, and it shows in the annual Coach of the Year voting where Rick has been by far the most impressive. Greg Popovich on the other hand, just seems to me like a product of Tim Duncan and a great supporting cast. Sure he's won 3 les, but 2 were very unimpressive wins; the * lockout season win over the 8th seeded Knicks, and the 2002 win over the New Jersey Nets, the Easts worst ever Finals represenitive. Even their past championship was questionable, as the team with the NBA's best record the prior season was virtually eliminated 3 weeks into the season. And last but not least, I have to mention Greg Popovich's single coaching season without Tim Duncan aka "The Season Spurs Fans Refuse To Acknowldge" - 96-97. I understand David Robinson was out, but you still have the core of a Western Conference Finals team plus the addition of a solid veteran scorer in Dominique Wilkins. Yet Popovich "led" the Spurs to one of the NBA's worst records - 17-47, .266 winning percentage. OUCH. I didn't know "elite" coaches could be so bad. If he weren't also the teams GM, he would've been fired at seasons end, would now be selling meat out of the back of a truck, and this entire debate is null and void.
Winner: Rick Carlisle, who's simply a more proven coach. Untill Greg Popovich proves he's more than just Tim Duncan's towel boy, and as I stated earlier his one season without Duncan was an embarassment to the Spurs franchise, then you've gotta go with Rick Carlisle, by far the NBA's most decorated coach since his arrival in the league 4 years ago.


Summary: This should be a great Finals match up. I could honestly see it going anywhere from Indaian in a sweep to Indiana in 7. That's how competetive it will be. I think in the end, Artest's shut down of Manu and Indianas superior role players will be too much for the Spurs to handle. I'd go wit Indiana in 6.

Besides just making a fool of yourself, let's clear up some things.
Bowen starts, doesn't come off the bench.
Finley comes off the bench, doesn't start.
Popovich has three, 3, rings. Carlisle, zero, 0.
Please tell me how Carlisle is more "proven" than Popovich. Franchises don't win rings without franchise players, such as Duncan. You say that Pop would not have won these rings without Duncan. So if I apply your theory to the past decade, Phil Jackson would not have won without Jordan and without Shaq. So how is it that Indiana has its franchise player, O'Neal, but has yet to win a ring.

Just please don't post "unbiased" facts until you can fully support each one.

[Extra Stout]

Ah, yes, the player-by-player and bench and coach breakdown. It's the favorite tool that fans use to rationalize to themselves how their team actually is better than the presumptive favorite. I used to do that like 10 years ago.

Coming right after the Finley signing, this is obviously a knee-jerk "No, no, my team's not screwed, there's really hope!!" kind of thing.

Indiana is really good, but not for the reasons listed above. I think even Rick Carlisle would just ignore that crap. He knows what wins basketball games.

[mrpach]

Flshback?????


Wednesday August 31, 2005 5:45 PM
User is online

You're crazy.

C: Mohammed / Dampier - very big edge to Dallas
PF: Duncan / Nowitzki - slight edge to Dallas
SF: Bowen / Howard - major edge to Dallas
SG: Ginobili / Christie - Ginobili gets edge on offense, Christie gets edge on defense: even
PG: Parker / Terry and Harris - Parker has the edge in experience, Terry and Harris have the edge in talent: even
Bench: Finley, Van Exel, Barry, Horry, Robinson / Stackhouse, Van Horn, Terry/Harris, Armstrong, Diop - very slight edge to San Antonio

imao

[ObiwanGinobili]

Oh mY god.....
I just read this whole thread... wow! Thank -you so much ArtestFactor I havn't laughed this hard in days.

dear lord my ribs hurt from laughing....it's just so unbelieveable that you are actually serious.....

"bowen's a bad basketball player"
" Pop < Carlisle"
"tinsley < Parker"

whew........ I don;t know what you been smoking man, but obviously it;s alot better then the stuff we got around here. Since you have obviously left all sense of reality miles behind you.

[E20]

This is probably the funniest thread EVER. We just need Pooh to come in and defend him.

[TwoHandJam]

I never said numbers are the sole measure of a players effectiveness. But when a player is so below average in production, you have to take notice. I'm befuddled how the Spurs have won 3 championships with this guy (Bowen) starting. i guess it just shows you how down the NBA has been as a whole in between the Bulls dynasty breakup and the Shaq/Kobe drama.

I think the above quote more or less crystallizes exactly how stunted this poster's basketball knowledge actually is. When you have an admission of ignorance like this, it's hard to keep reading. For those of you who wish to try and educate this poor soul, be my guest but this is where I get off.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the above quote more or less crystallizes exactly how stunted this poster's basketball knowledge actually is. When you have an admission of ignorance like this, it's hard to keep reading. For those of you who wish to try and educate this poor soul, be my guest but this is where I get off.

Amen.

[sa_butta]

Last game in which all players met.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=250106024

shot chucking Parker took less shots than Tinsley and scored more points.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

This breakdown is primarily going to look at the Spurs lineup, because I know next to nothing about the Pacers. The big difference is that I'm willing to admit, Artest Factor, and not intersperse ignorance with claims of expertise.

Tony Parker vs. Jamal Tinsley
Offense: While statistically Tinsley's a better shooter, Parker is nailing Eva Longoria. I think it's obvious who is the better scorer there. On top of that, Parker's jumper might be on once every 5 or 6 games, but when it is on he looks like the best PG in the league at times. See OT vs. Nuggest in round 1.

Defense: Parker's D has come a long ways in the last few seasons. He has a bad rap as being a poor defender in part because he's the worst defender of the starting five, who just happen to be great defenders. If you want proof of his improving D, take a look at games 5 and 7 when of the Finals when Parker had to guard Rip Hamilton. I still might give Tinsley the edge here, but not by a country mile like you would.

Boards: Please, they're the ing PG's. Neither of them is a guy like Gary Payton who's rebounding numbers are astronomical for a guard.

Passing: Tinsley might be a better passer, but that's hardly to the Spurs disadvantage. Their system requires their point guard to set up the offense, not to be a quarterback. His assist numbers may be low, but that's hardly his fault. I attribute Tinsley's superior ability to throw to his workouts with trying to throw dustpans like javelins into crowds.

Overall: Parker, because he's nailing Longoria.

Ginobili vs. Artest (even though I've heard tell that Artest is more of a forward)

Offense: Ginobili's midrange game isn't always on fire, but he's an effective and uberclutch three point threat. He's almost as effective as Parker at getting into the paint and he can draw a foul better than anyone in the league. Tell you what. Watch the hard foul that Ginobili simultaneously took from Kenyon Martin and Carmelo Anthony and then ask yourself two questions. 1. Would a soft player bounce back from a mugging like that so easily? (P.S.-He's been taking fouls like that all year, and missed next to no time with injury. Soft enough for ya?) 2. If your boy Artest had been the one to get hit like that, how many years do you think he'd be looking at in prison for biting out Carmelo's throat?

Defense: I think your description of Tinsley's D is good for Ginobili's as well. He's stronger than he looks, even in the post (Anyone remember how Tayshaun Prince was supposed to abuse him in the post? How'd that turn out?) He also takes a charge better than most in the league. Artest is still a great defender, but don't discount Gino's skillz.

Rebounding: Statwise Artest has the edge and he ought to given that he's that much bigger than Manu. Still Ginobili has been known to get to clutch rebounds when the game's on the line.

Passing: Manu is an incredible passer whose circus passes shock defenders and teammates alike. And why is this the least important matchup between the two? Since Parker is such an abyssmal passer someone has to pick up that slack.

Overall: Given that Artest spend 3/4 of the season away from the game and that he's a raving lunatic, I'll go with Ginobili, who is more likely to get people ejected than get ejected.

Bowen vs. Jackson

Offense: Bowen's offense is limited but efficient. He has a slowly developing midrange J, but the corner three is his bread and butter and he hits when it counts. Jackson is one of the streakiest bas s I've ever seen. He's one of those great enigmas who can shoot his team back into a game or shoot it in the foot. I'll give Jackson the edge in this one, but with the caveat that he's a black hole.

Defense: Not even ing close. Bowen finished second in DPOY voting, third the year before. On both of them I think he was robbed. And you're going to discount that because whiners like Allen and Carter think he's dirty? Guess what spanky? Some folks say the same about Artest. Better take that DPOY trophy back since some players in the league don't like him. Jackson's D is pretty good, but good be better considering his athletic ability.

Rebounding: I'll level with you, I just don't give a abou this one.

Passing: Bowen doesn't really have to handle the ball too much but he's a good guy at making the extra pass on the perimeter to find the open man when Duncan passes out of the the double teams. Jackson has never actually passed the ball in his life. I'm quite sure of that, so don't even try to cite his assist stats to me. He has never, ever passed the ball. At least to another person. I can remember his days with SA when he'd routinely put a few balls into the second row with ty passing.

Overall: Give me Bowen. Jackson is an asshole, a hothead, a streaky blackhole of a shooter, and immature. Bowen knows his role and plays it great. (P.S.-Jax did shoot the Spurs back into a few playoff games, but most of the hate around here is about the fact that if he hadn't been a turnover machine in said games, the Spurs wouldn't have been in such a deep ass hole to begin with. He started ahead of Ginobili because of the energizing effect Manu brought off the bench. Manu typically finished the games.)

Foster vs. Mohammed: I'm getting tired of going point by point here so I'll make it short and sweet. Foster is very underrated. (True story: My oldest brother had to guard Foster when he played his high school ball in SA. My brother was probably the best defender on a very good squad and Foster still worked him over pretty good. Just thought I would throw my family's brush with greatness in here.) This is really not the matchup where the game would be won or lost. I'll give Foster a slight edge on hands, heart, and hussle.

Tim vs. O'Neal

Don't make me laugh. Tim would work him over like a heavy bag. Jermaine impressed me in the playoffs with his toughness, but in every way Duncan is superior. The biggest problem with your "expert analysis" is not giving Duncan enough props for his passing. His assist numbers might not reflect it since a second pass usually gets made on the perimeter, but nobody gets the ball out of a double team more effectively.

Bench
Are a lot of the guys on the Spurs bench in their twilight years? Yes, but the Spurs are notorious for getting greatness out of old guys. Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis, Mario Elie, Robert Horry are but only a few of the Spurs succes stories. The Pacers bench benefited greatly from getting as much playing time as they did, but the Spurs have them by a country mile on this one.

Pop vs. Carlisle.

Rick did a of a job with his squad, but here's the million dollar question. Do you think for a second that any player coached by Pop would have gone into the stands after a fan? Or have hard fouled Ben Wallace in garbage time? Or have stayed out on the court to fight some fans? The answer is no.

Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up.

[cheguevara]

Pacers don't even deserve a Spurs vs. Pacers breakdown yet.

[nkdlunch]

WOW, artestfactor is as delusional as Artest himself

[Rescueone]

Besides just making a fool of yourself, let's clear up some things.
Bowen starts, doesn't come off the bench.
Finley comes off the bench, doesn't start.
Popovich has three, 3, rings. Carlisle, zero, 0.
Please tell me how Carlisle is more "proven" than Popovich. Franchises don't win rings without franchise players, such as Duncan. You say that Pop would not have won these rings without Duncan. So if I apply your theory to the past decade, Phil Jackson would not have won without Jordan and without Shaq. So how is it that Indiana has its franchise player, O'Neal, but has yet to win a ring.

Just please don't post "unbiased" facts until you can fully support each one.

Nicely put! Everyone should just ignore this fool!

[Frank Slakd]

hmm well Certainly the Pacers and Spurs have been and continue to be one of the top teams in the NBA however any comparison at all is null and void since the current team has not played together in over a year.

Certainly the Spurs have advantages and cause match up problems in certain areas. As do the Pacers in other respects.

No sense though in an overly Homer ill informed Poster comparing the two at this point....in fact the Spurs play Indy twice in the Preseason at least wait until then to get even a inkling of where these teams are currently at.

I am sure everyone is a little biased to some degree, but let's get real

[Mr. Body]

As someone mentioned upthread, this joker posted the exact same thread on realgm.com and has been getting crap about it for a while. Which leads me to believe he's spent the last few weeks lovingly retooling it and just added Finley and Van Exel's names in the last couple days. This also doesn't explain all the formatting, grammar, and spelling errors. Who knows why Pacers fans are becoming the worst homers in the league?

The problem with Indiana is that their two best players, Artest and O'Neal, don't rise to the level of the Spurs' two best players, Manu and Duncan. They're quite good and in the case of Artest, we really don't know quite how good he can be (though I believe JO is tapped out on potential). The problem is, neither really has the intangibles. Neither can consistently take over a game on the brink, neither is known for hitting clutch shots, and neither is anything like an on-the-court leader. Reggie Miller, after all, is gone.

The Pacers have a lot of talent, but a lot of head-cases. Their starting five is riddled with dubious mentalities - Tinsley, Jackson, Artest, O'Neal - and it's often only because they have an exceptional coach that they stay compe ive at the highest level.

These Pacers homers have a lot of faith in a bench that's done very little exceptional, or has shown flashes in the distant past, or looked good backing up suspended players last year. Yes, they did very well last year. Which is a testament as much to the coach as anybody... in a weaker East. They have guys like Austin Croshere who have underperformed their entire careers (or simply overperformed in one playoff year) and like Jonathan Bender, who for some reason is still considered somebody with the potential of becoming a good player. When in reality he's a bust. Yes, they have a good bench, with good players like Fred Jones, but there's simply no comparison to a bench like the one the Spurs are about to field, which is simply ridiculous.

Anyway, that's a lot to comment on one little troll, but is meant more as general thoughts about the Pacers. A good team. Their huge problem is that their talent level caps off beneath the superstar level. Their second huge problem is that they lack all kinds of intangibles. Their biggest advantage is a terrific coach.

[Trainwreck2100]

Spurs' Manu Ginobili vs Pacers' Ron Artest
OFFENSE
Both men are average shooters. However Manu's slightly better, but both are so average it's not a major concern. Ginobili is quicker and smaller, meaning he's a better penetrator, however Artest has the post up offense of an All-Star power forward, so that more than cancels out Manus superior quickness.
Winner: Ron Artest, who's versatile and ever-growing offensive repatoire combined iwth his massive size and strength outweighs Manu's superior shooting and quickness.

DEFENSE
Wow. Just...wow! On one hand, we've got the NBA's best defensive player in Ron Artest, a man who held opponents to a rediculous 9.1 ppg on 34% shooting during his last full season. On the other, we've got a player from the Euroleague. Do I really need to go any further? I will. Artest is just too big and strong for a player like Manu to handle. This in my opinion is the single biggest factor between the two teams. The Pacers can realistically shut down the Spurs second best player and there's nothing San Antonio can do about it but sit back and watch in horror. I know Duncan is good, but not good enough to win without a great #2, and he just won't have that here.
Winner: Ron Artest, the best defensive player in the league, win's this matchup by a couple thousand miles.

REBOUNDING
Artest, who's listed at a monsterous 6'7" 252 lb., is a far superior rebounder than the undersized, underweight Manu Ginobili. There's really not much else to say here.
Winner: Artest, by a wide margin.

PASSING
Manu wins this. Artest is an above average passer, with skills he fine tuned on the Queens, NYC playgrounds. He even played point forward at St. Johns. Manu however is one of the best passing shooting guards in the league. He win's this matchup, probably the least important matchup between the two players.
Winner: Manu, by a nose. Albeit a very large nose.

Alright now I'm scared of Artest, he is right on the money with this comparison. It's like my eyes have been opened for the first time, honestly I am scared now.

Note to self,
(a)buy ticket to SA/Indy game
(b)sneak onto lower level
(c)pay guy $50 to throw beer
(d)after beer lands point and laugh and get assaulted and sue for a crapload of money.

Artest problem solved.