The Rockets would look like a "legit" team too if they were in the East. Considering that the Rockets have been feasting off East teams.
Pacers are 12-9 vs the West. They beat Denver (twice), Memphis (twice), etc. Not to mention they have beaten the Heat (twice)...
And the Rockets have beaten the Knicks twice, Bulls twice, Warriors once and Grizzlies once. The point is the Rockets would look a lot better if they were in the East.
Besides the point. You implied that the Pacers merely 'look legit' because they played in the East. Showing that they can, and have, beaten teams like the Nuggets (who the Rockets haven't beat yet) show they are not merely a product of a weak conference.
I was kidding man.... show some humor....Pacers have been good for two seasons but Miami still won out... you gotta have Finals experience and the heart of a champion
That is the most r****ded MVP list I have ever seen. Paul George does not deserve to be within 10 miles of an NBA MVP list. Since when does a guy averaging 17 ppg on 42% garner MVP consideration?!?!?! WTF am I missing?
Of the 4 other guys mentioned from George's his draft class: Cousins, Wall, Turner, and Monroe, I would take all of them over George except for Turner.
Pacers have improved, specifically Paul George, to the extent where they can challenge Miami. They probably won't win, because Miami has LeBron... and the Pacers don't....
You are cherry picking teams that the Rockets have and haven't beaten. The Pacers haven't beaten the Warriors yet (the Rockets have), the Pacers haven't beaten the Nets yet (the Rockets have). The Pacers are 1-1 against the Knicks so far whereas the Rockets blew them out twice. Overall, as you said, the Pacers are 12-9 against the West. That is the 7th best winning percentage in the league, but with a much much smaller sample size. So yes, my point still stands, the Pacers do benefit a lot from being in the East. That is not to say they are a bad team, just that they benefited from an easier conference.
I realize that but a MOST VALUABLE PLAYER from the entire NBA needs to put up more than 17.6 ppg on 42.5% shooting. Unless he is the best defender in the history of the league, he should not be an MVP candidate. Don't try to troll me by acting like I don't understand the value of defense, passing, basketball IQ, etc. I'm not DD on here just looking up stats and posting PER's.
It's a combination of things. Paul George is playing on a top 3 team in his conference, as the best player on the team, with a valuable member of the team missing the entire season thus far due to injury. Paul George does pretty much everything for the Pacers. Although his 18 ppg is not an impressive stat, 18/8/4 on offense, and 2 steal/1 block a game on defense is nothing to sniff at. But lets be honest... after LeBron/Durant no one else is really in the MVP conversation.
Okay, I feel you. That's a completely fair assessment. However, what irritates me is the notion that he is a "Franchise player". A "Franchise player" needs to be able to be the main offensive option. George really isn't at this point. If he increases his scoring to 21+, then I might reconsider, but if he is truly a guy to build around, his progression seems somewhat slow considering he is already in his third season.
Still behind Kobe. If wade was in the same position as harden is ( a clear number one option ) I think there would be more of a case for wade ahead of him as well. I still have him number 3, but there are nights when he challenges both of them.
I don't mean he is as if he is spectacular at everything; or that he is their only good player, I mean it as he scores/rebounds/passes the ball well (all above average for a SG or SF if you want to define him as that), and he defends very well.
I don't think that is true, although it typically is. If a player contributes enough on both ends, you can be a franchise player. If the player is poor defensively, they must be able to make up for it on the offensive end (see Steve Nash). To me, a franchise player is a player you can build a team around and contend. There are many franchise players (around 20), but there are very few SUPERSTARS (maybe 6-8). I think Harden is a super star. I think Paul George is a franchise player (who may become a Superstar, although I doubt it).
