3 games can make a world of difference

by psvirsky on Apr 5, 2009 8:54 AM EDT

I've been keeping an eye on standing and lottery position to see what our chances would be of a top 3 pick. Realistically though, it's very unlikely to land one of those picks unless you're way up there, say top 5 or so. So it honestly probably won't make a huge difference where the Pacers end up. Every once in a while though a later team will get extremely lucky and pop up there, the best example being last year's Bulls. They finished 9th worst in the league and had a 1.7% chance of getting the top pick...and they did. While looking all this over, I wondered how close the Pacers were to that spot. 3 games.

In other words, last year, had we lost just 3 more games, we would theoretically have gotten the top pick in the draft. I'm not even sure why I'm pointing this out, other than the fact that it's painful and I wanted to share the misery. Right now we're in the 12 spot for the lottery but we're within 1.5 games of the 9 spot.

Oh well. Hopefully we'll be the ones getting extremely lucky this year.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You know what stinks?

We’re drafting 12th right now. You know how LOW that is for what we need? Jeez. With Milwaukee openly tanking now, we’re kind of left out there, four games out of the playoffs, too easy of a schedule to blow them all. I want this team to compete every game and win whatever game they can, but I didn’t think it would get us the 12th or 13th pick in the draft at BEST.

The incredible crapiness of the bottom [b]HALF[/b] of the Western Conference really puts us in a pickle for having an average, not quite there yet, team that just plain needs an impact player in the draft, cause there won’t be ANYONE there at 12.

by Nathan S. on Apr 5, 2009 10:38 AM EDT reply actions

What needs to be done to prevent tanking?

I hate the fact that the Pacers will be punished for playing out the season hard. It is a joke. There should clearly be some system in place where the Pacers don’t have as good of a chance as getting Blake Griffin as let’s say the Kings or the Clippers, but there should not be such a huge disparity between where teams finish and their odds in the lottery. I agree with basically everything the NBA does, but this is one thing that has to be fixed, it stinks.

by captain flitzy on Apr 5, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions

What's strange

Is that it shouldn’t be a big deal with the lottery, since you aren’t guaranteed anything by tanking, unlike in football where you get a higher pick the worse you do, but teams play hard all the time. I think the biggest issue is that the NBA Draft just isn’t very deep. No disrespect to players that are taken later, or not drafted at all, because there are gems in there, but there are bulks of second round guys that never hit the NBA court, and it’s certainly even more rare that anyone taken out of the top ten is going to become a great impact type player.

The only thing I can think would be to put less disparity between the picks, so that the top teams aren’t so heavily rewarded by the overall pick. Perhaps a lottery system based on record instead of based on position. Maybe giving teams in a certain win bracket the same chance as other teams and making it a full 14 team lottery. Obviously, leave the first three picks open for anyone, but then perform a lottery based on win brackets, maybe <20, 21-26, 27-35, etc.

It wouldn’t be too hard to keep those numbers under wrap to keep teams from tanking to fall into a better win bracket, but I certainly agree it’s unfair to punish the Pacers for playing for pride, because that’s what’s going to happen, despite the fact Milwaukee is probably a better team than us and has been ahead of us the entire season up until just now.

by Nathan S. on Apr 5, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

problem is it goes both ways

the odds used to be much more even. It used to be that the best record in the lottery got one ball, 2nd best two balls, etc. and the worst team had 13 balls (or whatever the number is). The Magic won it two years in a row and got Penny and Shaq so they changed it to the current format to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.

I think part of the reason why the draft and getting a top 5 guy matters is because one guy can have so much more of an impact in basketball. With the NFL or MLB, it really takes a number of players to become a playoff team. An NBA team still needs a solid 1-8, but you only need 1 or 2 guys drafted in the top 10 to win a championship. Thinking of all the top teams right now, they’re all basically built around 1 or 2 top 10 picks: Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, KG, Howard, etc. We’ve got one of those in Granger – one more and we can really contend (says my most optimistic side)

"If you don't [draft me], I promise you I'll come back and kick your ass for the next 15 years."

by psvirsky on Apr 5, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

At 12

There will be some talent but we will most likely miss out on who I feel are the top 5 of this draft in Rubio, Griffin, Monroe, and Thabeet.

However this draft is seemingly deeper then maybe expected. I would love to see Indy somehow end up with one other lottery pick. I feel like we could target a big man and a guard. I would love to see DeRozan slip to us. Ed Davis would also be the type of player that we need to add, someone with a high ceiling, even if they could be a bust.

We can say what we want about last years draft and hindsight is 20/20 but nothing is going to bother me more than passing on Anthony Randolph. I like Rush a lot and am pulling for him but Randolph would be great to have right now.

by kennythered on Apr 6, 2009 1:33 PM EDT reply actions

Only issue with a guy like Davis

Is that he’s a product. He won’t be able to step in and help the Pacers immediately, which is what the team wants, even though he could be help in the future. That and we saw last year with Rush and Hibbert that Bird has very little interest in “unproven” guys or projects in the first round, trading Bayless, who has one of the highest ceilings and potential risks in the draft for a more proven player in Rush, who’s ceiling is lower, but likewise, so is the risk.

But with the barren wasteland of interior working big men or true PGs in this years draft outside of Griffin, Hill, or Rubio, it’s kind of like, “How many options do we really have?” I’d love to land one of Griffin, Rubio, or Hill, but that would require a top three pick, something we will not have much chance to have the luxury of at the #12 spot. I’m almost ready to say, “Forget it, take Curry if he’s there,” because I just don’t see that player we need at #12.

Guess we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe Bird can make something happen. Don’t know that any of our guys not Danny, Rush, Hibbert, or Jack and the #12 are worth a top five pick, but if we have a chance to land one of those players we think can make an impact on next year’s team, I’d like to see it done. There are a lot of options for this team not limited to drafting a project like Ed Davis just because that’s all that might be there worth taking.

by Nathan S. on Apr 6, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

I feel

I feel like that, screw take “blank” has gotten us in this situation. Guys with no upside in the NBA does not win games. I do like Curry, if we had 2 top 15 picks, but knowing that Jennings, Warren, or other big upside guys can fall, we need to take the risk this year.

by kennythered on Apr 7, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions