Reply With Quote
An Unbiased opinion from a Pacer fan. that picks everything in favor of the.... Pacers.
Makes sense...
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.
One thing I've noticed is how overrated an ntonio has become since picking up Mchael Finley and Nick Van Exel. It does't surprise me as the average fan only looks at name value, and Finley and Van Exel are both former All-Stars. However what they're overlooking is the fact that both are well past their primes, and are a s of a s of their former selves. Van Exel is 33 and probably has a max of 2 years left in the league. Finley is 32 and has very little game left. He's basically Glenn Robinson II. There's a reason Dallas cut him while keeping Tariq Abdul-Wahad.
So without further ado, here are my unbiased, unhyped matchup breakdown for the Pacers and Spurs.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Spurs' Tony Parker vs Pacers' Jamaal Tinsley
OFFENSE
A superior FT% and 3P% shows us that Tinsley is quite easily the better shooter. Parker's superior quickness and slimmer frame allows him to penetrate the lane better than Tinsley giving him the edge in dribble-drive penetration. One of the most underrated aspects of Tinsley offense is his post game. Being a large-framed point guard in the mold of a Mark Jackson, Tinsley is probably the best post up point guard in the league.
Winner: Parker, slightly. Tinsley's a more well-rounded scorer, however Parker's penetration and subsuquent higher FG% gives him a slight edge.
DEFENSE
Perimeter D: Tinsley is one of the better perimeter defensive point guards in the league. He's a perenial contender for the steals le and is blessed with incredible street smarts. Parker on the other hand is a notoriously poor defender. Whether if be his lack of size or strength, or a lack of desire and discipline from his European uprising, Parker just downright refuses to play defense.
Winner: Tinsley, a very underrated defender, and the best theif in the NBA last season before his unfortunate injury.
REBOUNDING
Tinsley wipes the floor with Parker when it comes to rebounding. He's much larger and stronger, and has a better knack for the ball.
Winner: Tinsley, one of the best rebounding points in the league.
PASSING
Tinsley, the sterotypical New York City pass-first point guard, wins this quite easily. Tinsley is in that upper tier of passers in the NBA. The only 2 players I would clearly rank ahead of him at this point are Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. Tony Parker on the other hand, is one of the more mediocre passing point guards in the league. Despite dominating the ball in San Antonio, and playing with the most fundamentally sound player in the league, he picks up few assists on run of the mill passes.
Winner: Tinsley, a much better passer than Tony Parker. Even Spurs homers and NBA fans who only listen to Bill Walton and Tom Tolbert, and would be lead to believe Tony Parker is a great point guard and not the French version of Speedy Claxton, can't deny this.
OVERALL
Outside of scoring, Tinsley dominates every other head-2-head matchup with Parker. I know to most of you ESPNaholics scoring is all that matters in the game of basketball, but to us NBA experts, we relieze it's the overall game that counts. And when it comes to overall games, Tinsley blows Tony "One-Trick Pony" Parker out of the water.
Winner: Jamaal Tinsley, his overall game of scoring, defense, passing, handling, and rebounding at the point guard position is surpassed by only a small handful of players. all of whom are All-Stars. (Kidd, Francis, B. Davis)
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.:
OVERALL
Artest just dominates this matchup. I find it hard to believe a player as "soft" as Manu Ginobili will be able to get off anything over Ron Artest. I'd expect to see Manu struggle to reach double-figures scoring and with a field goal percentage in the high-20's to low-30's. Artest on the other hand, will use his muscle and athleticism to throw Manu around like a rag doll on the offensive end. Manu has no shot at stopping the "Rottweiler" so this matchup could prove to be laughably one-sided in favor of the Beast from the East, the All-Star, All-NBA, Defensive Player of the Year - Ron Artest.
Winner: Ron Artest, the NBA's most dangerous offense/defense perimeter weapon.
Spurs' Michael Finley vs Pacers' Stephen Jackson
OFFENSE
Michael Finley is a dangerous scorer, who uses his high flying athleticism to soar over defenders, and his deadly jump shot to shoot over those who dare challenge him on the perimeter.
Wait a minute. What year is it? 1998? No wait, it's 2005! Scratch that first paragraph. Michael Finley is a grizzled veteran who's been so broken down by injuries he's barely grasping on to his NBA career. He was recently cut by the Mavs in favor of keeping Tariq Abdul-Wahad on the roster. That tells you all you need to know about Michael Finley at this stage of his career. He brings little more than "name" value at this point.
Stephen Jackson on the other hand is a player who's improved drastically every season he's been in the league. From a 10th man in New Jersey, to a solid role-player on the Spurs 2002 championship team, to the leading scorer on the Hawks, to a 19 ppg scorer on a playoff team in Indiana. The sky's the limit for this talented young man!
Winner: Stephen Jackson, and the gaps only widening.
DEFENSE
Michael Finley's "defense" is offensive to me as a basketball fan. This guy get's lit up more than a joint at Woodstock. He's just too elderly and brittled to event attempt to play defense. Stephen Jackson on the other hand is a big, athletic shooting guard who uses his ripped and athletic 6'8" frame to make shooting over him a very hard thing to do for opposing shooting guards. And this was with him guarding the opponents best perimeter defender last seaosn. Now with Artest taking over that role, and Jackson guarding the teams 2nd best perimeter player, an All-Defensice team isn't out of the question.
Winner: Stephen Jackson, and the gaps only widening.
REBOUNDING
Jackson is a better rbeounder, bar none. He's bigger, stronger, younger, and more athletic. Finley was a solid rebounder in his day, due largely in part to his great leaping ability. However numerous injuries and old age have limited his game to below the rim, where he's a huge liability when it comes to rebounding.
Winner: Stephen Jackson, one of the better rebounding 2-guards in the league.
PASSING
This is a dead heat. Neither man is anything to write home about when it comes to passing. Let's just keep it short and sweet and leave it at that.
Winner: Even
OVERALL
At this point in time the only edge I can give Michael Finley is in the shooting department. Everything else favors Stephen Jackson, sans passing which is dead even. And since Finley keeps drifting further and furtheraway from his peak whereas Jackson has yet to reach his, the gap will only widen in the coming season(s).
Winner: Stephen Jackson, and the....ahh...you all get the point.
Spurs' Nazr Mohammed vs Pacers' Jeff Foster
OFFENSE
This is a battle between two mediocre offensive centers. Foster has a far better FG% and takes less shots per game, so one could say he's a far smarter offensive player who knows his role. However Mohammed is a more skilled low post scorer, and despite his inferior FG% and knack for taking ill-advised shots that hurt his team, he gets the edge.
Winner: Nazr Mohammed, a more skilled low post scorer
DEFENSE
Mohammed's a far better shot blocker, however when it comes to disrupting the offensive player, Jeff Foster is far superior. Foster is arguably the NBA's most antagonizing defensive center, a player who's been described as a white Dennis Rodman.
Winner:
REBOUNDING
Mazr Mohammed is a good rebounder. Jeff Foster, however, is a great rebounder. 9.0 rebounds in only 26.1 minutes per game is rediculous, and one of the best rebounding rates in the entire NBA. There's a reason Foster is called a white Dennis Rodman by NBA eperts (including myself, and his rebounding is it. His defense too, but mainly his rebounding.
Winner: Jeff Foster, one of the leagues top-5 rebounders
PASSING
This is a pretty meaningless stat, as neither player is much of a passer at all. Most centers aren't. Looking at the stats, I see that Foster averages 0.7 apg in 26.1 mpg compraed to Mohammed's 0.4 apg in 25.1 mpg. So it's safe to say Foster's the better passer.
Winner: Jeff Foster, although neither are good passers, very few centers are.
OVERALL
Both are strictly role players, however Jeff Foster's superior defense, rebounding, and passing more than makes up for Nazr Mohammed's slightly better offensive game.
Winner: Jeff Foster, perhaps the NBA's most underrated player.
Spurs' Tim Duncan vs Pacers' Jermaine O'Neal
OFFENSE
Both are very good scorers. Duncan has been the better scorer throughout their careers, however last season O'Neal was clearly better. Duncan's superior FG% is somewhat offset by O'Neals far superior FT%. However, I'll give the very boring Tim Duncan his due and give him the edge in scoring.
Winner: Tim Duncan, by not by near as much as people think.
DEFENSE
Two great defensive big men. Duncan's a slightly better shot blocker, however O'Neal's superior athleticism allows him to defend a wider variety of offensive players, and also allows him to pick up more steals.
Winner: Even, Duncan a better shot blocker however O'Neal
REBOUNDING
O'Neal is a good rebounder. Duncan is a great rebounder. Nothing else to say really.
Winner: Tim Duncan
PASSING
Two ok passers considering both are near 7'. I'd probably give a slight edge to Duncan since he's a better passer out of the double team, but O'Neals 3 years younger and can hopefully improve that as he get's older.
Winner: Tim Duncan
OVERALL
As great as Jermaine O'Neal is, there's only 1 player in the NBA clearly superior to Tim Duncan and that's Kevin Garnett.
Winner: Tim Duncan, the NBA's second best power foward.
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.
Last edited by The Artest Factor; 09-02-2005 at 01:36 PM.
An Unbiased opinion from a Pacer fan. that picks everything in favor of the.... Pacers.
Makes sense...
The Artest Factor v COLD BEER
Winner: COLD BEERIMO
The Artest Factor: plonk!
I thought it wasCOLD BEER IMO
Cold Beer, IMO
unbiased huh....yeah, ok.
welcome to the board though.
This is perhaps the worst take I've ever seen. Horry "washed up"? Are there not TVs in Indianapolis?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.
As for Pop, if Carlisle had a squad without DRob and without AJ, Elliott, etc...for major parts of that season he would've led that team to the lottery as well. We've seen what kind of discipline Carlisle has ins uted in Indiana and its why he is not a championship coach.
Just go.
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.
Thanks for being unbiased.
Welcome to the Forum.
Wow, just wow. Thank you so much! I needed a good laugh.
Carlisle better then Pop??
And by the way, if you are going to make a "detailed" analysis of the Spurs, you should at least get your facts straight. Number 1, Manu is a very good defender. Just cuz he played in Europe doesnt mean anything. Number 2, Finley is comming off the bench, not starting! The fact that you dont know much about SA makes any credibilty you have go down the drain. Oh yeah, dont say its your "unbiased opinion," cuz its not. Your a freakin Pacer fan!!!
Funny stuff though.
I stopped when you gave the edge to Tinsley. Have you ever seen the two play against each other? Parker owns him.
I stopped when you gave the edge to Tinsley. Have you ever seen the two play against each other? Parker owns him.
He even cites Carlisle's bogus "Artest defense stats." It doesn't get much less reliable than that!
I would normally be inclined to refute this point-by-point, particularly the many generalized misconceptions set forth about the Spurs, the idea that Finley will start and matchup against Jackson, and the preposterous nonsense about Popovich. Since this clown is apparently relishing his cluelessness, though, I don't see the point and I really have neither the time nor the energy to spend on such a wasted enterprise.
Objectively, there is no doubt that the Pacers are a formidable opponent. But homerism is not objectivity.
Is this Mouse again? Quite laughable. Ask Fortson, Buckner, Martin, Amare, the Wallaces, etc., how soft Ginobili is.
Lmfao @ this topic.
Thanks for the laugh.
This is ing HILARIOUS!!! Stop the weed man.. Seriously!
Parker+Gino+Bowen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tinsley+Artest+SJ
Spurs Bench >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pacers Bench
You must be the Dumbest Pacers Fan I've ever seen!
That was just completely ridiculous. "Rick Carlisle, who's simply a more proven coach." How many rings does he have? Don't you have to win rings to prove something? Indiana should be happy if they can get out of the second round.
What a load of . The Pacers aren't even going to make the finals.
Has Indy even beat Detroit or Miami? Wait 10 months before making final comparisons.
Niether will the Heat.
You know your team is badass when other teams' posters run the "head-to-head comparison/paper champions" routine on September 2.
Carlisle better than Pop
BTW Parker owns Tinsley.
Parker's superior quickness and slimmer frame allows him to penetrate the lane in a way Tinlsey could never dream of, causing ridiculous matchup problems that force defenses to collapse onto him and free up others. Tell me again when Tinsley forces a whole team to guard him the way Parker did in 2004 vs the Lakers. Parker over Tinsley is such an obvious call it's not even funny. There's no guard in the league who is as good a finisher at the rim as Parker. Parker's a point guard with no jumpshot who still shot 48% last year, versus Tinsley's 42%. Don't give me this garbage about Tinsley being some monster on the boards when he averaged 4.0 rebounds per versus Tony's 3.7. Don't get me wrong - Tinsley is a very underrated player, but don't tell me he can do the things to a defense that Tony Parker can.
No sense in arguing about it. We will just have to wait and see. When SA plays IND in the Finals we we all know for sure who is..........oh wait nevermind! IND wont even be in the finals. Oh well. I guess we will never know!
Too bad they are in the east. DARN!!!
Oh well ok then. Someone call Stern and tell them to cancel the season. Its been unbiasedly pointed out that Indiana is the superior team and that the Spurs have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER so everyone stay on vacation.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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
