National Recognition Coming Around

by reelmancoop on Jan 30, 2012 2:10 PM EST

http://espn.go.com/nba/powerrankings/_/year/2012/week/5

Finally, some love for the Pacers in the ESPN Power Rankings. This is our highest ranking of the year, at number 5.

1) The Heat

2) The Thunder

3) The Bulls

4) The Nuggets

5) The Pacers

6) The Clippers

7) The 76ers

8) The Mavericks

9) The Hawks

10) The Spurs

I actually can't argue with the four teams ahead of us. If you haven't been following the Nuggets, they are built similar to the Pacers, but have been wrecking everyone they play of late. Given our schedule over the next few weeks, I hope the boys can keep their spot this high!

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sadly

If we don’t start outplaying the Sixers soon, we could wind up with a 6 seed when we are probably capable of a homecourt series. It’s a grind. Luckily they have a brutal stretch of games coming up. But they’re scary good too. Lookin like they could walk away with that Atlantic division. But given the way the playoff seeding is formatted, it’s looking like Orlando is the team we have the most to worry about. With a similar record at this juncture, and with both teams fighting for second in their division the winner may have a good shot at a homecourt series. What would be awesome is if all of these injuries could catch up with Chicago and we could somehow sneak away with the Central division by a game or so. I know it’s unrealistic, but damn, that would be so awesome and would piss them off so much.

"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"

Come visit The Fantasy Ninjas. We'd love to hear from you.

by LukeNukem on Jan 30, 2012 2:43 PM EST reply actions

Ehh, I'm not worried about the Sixers at this point.

They appear to be a legit team, but if you look at their wins against quality opponents, they have 1.5 on the season. They’ve beaten the Hawks and the Pacers, and we were without Granger and Hill. They’ve lost to every other team with a winning record that they’ve played – Miami, Portland, Utah, and Denver, with a loss to the very-difficult-to-figure-out New York Knicks.

I’ve no doubt they’ll take the Atlantic – Boston may find their groove, but I think their recent wins this past week were largely due to the Magic and Pacers shooting themselves in the foot.

The team that bothers me is Atlanta. There’s no reason they should be winning as often as they have minus Horford, and unless they run out of gas at some point, I’d be more worried about them than Orlando. The Magic are ready to implode, so look for that team to start dropping games and falling out of “will they make the top 4?” contention.

And, of course, beating out Chicago for the Central is a freaking fantasy, but slap me if I’m not dreaming.

by Jmahoney on Jan 30, 2012 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

Philly beat Orlando tonight....

…so does that contradict your first point, or support your last (the one before the Chicago thing)?

Beating out Chicago isn’t ENTIRELY inconcievable, but I can agree that it seems unlikely.

As well as the Pacers have played, as I said in my 1st quarter report post, they are playing above their heads a bit right now just making everything work beyond the sum talent of the team. And, yet, even when they get good shots they’re luck seems to hurt them and they rim out alot. As good as the Pacers have been, they could get a bit better…quite a bit better if they can get 30+ games out of Foster and have him at 100% come May. They could also get a couple other injuries to key players and slide down to the 7th/8th seed battle with the likes of NY, CLE, BOS, etc.

For my money, it’s the 3rd seed or bust. Well, not bust, but if we don’t get the 3rd seed, then I’d just assume have the 8th seed. Well, actually I would probably rather not face Miami or Chicago in the opening round. Let’s say if we don’t get the 3rd seed I’d rather have the 6th than the 4th or 5th. I look at the 2nd tier of the east as 3 or 4 very solid, very dangerous teams; ORL (if Howard stays and they aren’t out of the picture by the time the deadline comes…they’ll be reinvigorated), ATL (with Horford), PHI, and the INDIANA PACERS!!!! We can beat any of those teams, but I really prefer to open against one of those sub .500 teams that backed in. If we don’t get the 3rd seed, we’re likely to face one of those other 2nd tier teams that match up with us fairly well. If it’s the 4th or 5th seed and any of those teams as our opponent, I’d rather just pick a few spots higher in the draft and hope for the best as the lower seed in that matchup.

peac.e

by trucutter on Jan 30, 2012 10:24 PM EST up reply actions

If the Pacers truly have turned a corner...

… and end up with a record similar to the one they have now percentage-wise, we’re going to end up in a first-round match against one of the second-tier teams in the East. At this point, I don’t know if Orlando is in that boat. These guys are drowning in their own sea of awful, and there aren’t any signs of them righting that ship.

I agree that a third seeding looks a lot more attractive match-up wise than a 4th or lower. I say 4th, because whoever makes the 5th seed will still be damn good. At this point, there’s been a legitimate battle between Atlanta, Philly, Orlando, and Indiana for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th seeds. If it stays that way, Indy will end up playing one of those other three teams in the first round no matter which of those 4 spots they get.

Only way we play a lesser team is if we grab the 1st or 2nd seeds. The playoffs projections are already making me a bit uncomfortable.

by Jmahoney on Jan 31, 2012 11:36 AM EST up reply actions

The only benefit to the 3rd seed is that we most likely wouldn't have to play the Bulls in the second round

But with their injuries, and the way Miami seems to be righting things, that could change. Either seed is going to pit us against a Philly, Orlando or Atlanta type team in the first, and either Miami or Chicago in the second. All bad. We should be just rooting for a chance at a home playoff series. That would be phenomenal.

"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"

Come visit The Fantasy Ninjas. We'd love to hear from you.

by LukeNukem on Jan 31, 2012 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, in our best scenario...

… we get home court and a first round that doesn’t feature Miami, Chicago, or Philly. I’d take home court against Atlanta, Orlando, Boston, or Milwaukee/Cleveland any day.

by Jmahoney on Jan 31, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah. When I first came to my 3rd seed conclusion, I don't think I was as worried bout ATL...but, if they get Horford back 100%????

My math was off. For some reason I was thinking 3rd would get us away from the other 3 teams behind CHI and MIA in the 1st round…but we are the 4th of those other 3. I change my mind then. If we can’t somehow steal the 2nd seed, I’d just assume have the 6th seed…unless Orlando goes on a tear for the next 6 weeks, then trades Howard and still ends up the 6th seed, then I’d be real cool with the 3rd seed. Obviously having home court advantage in the 1st round would be nice, but I really like the top 20-25 of this draft alot more than the rest of it (tons of guys I like should be available pick 1 thru 20).

Everyone has always said, “what’s a couple slots in the middle of the draft really worth?” Well,Danny was no question the last good player picked that year and he was square in the middle of the draft. If we are still facing a tough team with the 6th seed or the 3rd seed, and it means 4-6 spots higher in the draft (keep in mind there will likely be west playoff teams that will push us further up or down the draft board)….if it’s a matter of one home court game vs. 5 or 6 draft spots…in this draft I definately take the draft spots.

But, for now, I’m rooting for every win and a 1st seed, however far fetched it might be.

peac.e

by trucutter on Jan 31, 2012 9:08 PM EST up reply actions

Our entire team is made up of guys from the middle of the 1st round. lol

by Jmahoney on Jan 31, 2012 9:47 PM EST up reply actions

I would opt to get the best possible seed in the playoffs.

You are talking about mathetical chances at improvement. I make a case for sustaining player morale and confidence for the future.

I guess it’s a matter of preference.

by Manfred James on Feb 1, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions

If there seems to be clear deliniation between the matchup we'd get at 3 or 4 vs. 5 or 6...

…then I’m with ya. Otherwise, the players won’t give a sh!t about the seed if they don’t win in the playoffs. If our matchup isn’t much (or any) tougher at the 3rd seed than 6th, I’d rather get assurance that we are going to pick in the top 20-22 picks. But, I’ve watched a lot of college ball this year and there’s a pretty shere break between my top 20 or so players and the rest. And, I love this team, but they won’t care if they lose in the first round as a 6th seed or a 3rd seed. I want them to win, so if the matchup makes that big of a difference, then I’m with ya.

Mostly I think we are just pointing out the solid grouping of teams in the middle of the East playoff hunt and how they all can be dangerous. I think I just took it a step futher coupled with my desire to add another solid player in June.

peac.e

by trucutter on Feb 1, 2012 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, I don't think they'd care if they lost...

…no matter the seed. But mentally, it’s a big boost to host a playoff rather than not. Especially since we just made it in by the skin of our teeth last year.
Of course, I’d rather draft higher, but not at the expense of seeding. Just as I was against the strategy of tanking for a higher pick.
It must be an old-school mentality. I don’t like the win-a-championship-at-all-costs-even-if-it-means-giving-less-than-your-best-this-year thinking.
Not saying that you do, either.

by Manfred James on Feb 4, 2012 10:33 AM EST up reply actions