The rockets and pacers rebuilt in a similar, but different way. They both had really good teams destroyed by circumstances beyond their control (malice in palace, tmac and yao breaking down). Neither had very high draft picks. The rockets were built around analytics and trying to get assets to get an efficient players like Harden. They have one of the highest TS% in the league. The pacers were built around drafting and growing around a defensive anchor Hibbert and george whose offense isn't that great. I don't know how much larry bird believes advanced stats so I can't make a comment on that. Right now the Pacers are in ECF so obviously they look better. It shows you that there are different ways to build a team. However who has the brighter future? If the rockets get Howard I think it is the rockets, but if not then I am not sure.
Pacers unless we get a coach who doesn't go with the gimmicky run and gun offense solely relying on 3 pointers or layups, i.e. no midrange game.
Pacers are basically us in terms of advanced statistics... on defense. We shoot 3s and layups. They give up no 3s and layups
The two teams are actually really close in terms of performance measures. In bball-reference.com's SRS ranking, they are 8th and 9th, respectively. The Pacers had a lightly larger margin of victories and the Rockets had a stronger strength of schedule. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2013.html. They go about it in totally different ways, though, with HOU being a top offensive team and IND relying on its defense. If the teams had switched conferences, it's not a stretch to see HOU winning a few more regular season games against a softer schedule and beat the likes of Atlanta and NY in the playoffs (HOU was 4-0 vs these two teams, albeit with all 4 teams played before the Robinson trade). As for the future, I'd give HOU the edge for now given that it has more immediate cap flexibility and a younger roster. Of courses, these things may not always translate into more wins later on, but they are useful to have.
This forum has frustratingly proven over and over that it doesn't do a very good job of being objective when it comes to our players....(is Chandler Parsons untouchable, Harden or George, what would you trade Chandler for, etc.), so it's not surprising that the Rockets are currently winning this poll. But I digress, to me this is almost laughable, in the fact that not only do the Rockets only have 1 player who would start for the Pacers but by the mere fact that the Pacers already have 2 Franchise players and the Rockets don't even know if/when they'll ever get a 2nd player says this isn't a valid argument. As of right now the Pacers are still 1 of the 4 teams left with a chance for a Championship and they currently have shown that they are more than good enough to beat the consensus best team in the NBA, as opposed to our Rockets who couldn't get past the Westbrook-less Thunder..... So yes, I voted for Indiana.
I think the rockets have more potential as a team. The pacers are good, but to the exception of George and maybe Hibbert, that team is pretty much a finished product. As a team, they aren't gonna get better with the exception of a major change. West certainly isn't getting any younger. The rockets have so much more potential to grow. Add to that that we have cap space and are the youngest team and we have the brighter future.
So would you also say that Cleveland has a brighter future than Indy? The NBA is not like the NFL in the sense that having cap room doesn't really mean much of anything. Yeah we've got cap flexibility, but what happens if D12 doesn't sign here...EVER, and Chandler's contract extension time arrives before we acquire that 2nd franchise player? The fact of the matter also remains that not only are they better, but barring injury CP will never be as valuable as George, and Asik won't be as valuable as Hibbert. If we were to acquire the "2nd guy" this off-season then this becomes an entirely new debate, but as of right now the Pacers are a leg up on the Rockets because they have done the most difficult thing in the NBA.......acquire a franchise player....TWICE!
I picked the Rockets as having brighter future. Pacers are the better team now because their current big men are head and shoulders above our big men. However in the weaker conference they only won 4 more games than the Rockets this year. Front office needs to make some moves and hopefully some of our young bigs develop.
In all honesty, with the roster we currently have, what is the Rockets ceiling? IMO its somewhere around being competitive in the 2nd round of the playoffs, but it's nowhere near a championship. They've got a few guys who could get better, but IMO not good enough (except for Harden and maybe CP)
No, I would not say that Cleveland has a brighter future than Indy. Yes, Cleveland has cap room. However, nobody is saying that cap room is the sole measurement of future potential. The reason why I said HOU has an edge on IND is that the twoteams have very similar present performance level (8th and 9th in terms of SRS, and probably similarly ranked according to other "power ranking" measures) and thus if we are to break the tie, then future flexibility+assets favor Houston. Also, note the second sentence you quoted-- I specifically noted that cap flexibility and youth do not always lead to more future wins. Of course Houston can fail to sign anyone with its cap room-- or worse, it can sign the wrong guy and get stuck with him, but cap room is one asset that you'd rather have than not have. It's the same with draft picks, young players, etc. These things do not always pan out, but it's better to have them than not to have them. As for Clevland: Cleveland's present performance level is not close to that of Houston or Indy right now. Yes, they have cap room, a high draft pick, and several young guys recently drafted in the top 4, but they'll need one or (most likely) several things to go right (such getting the right free agent, drafting the right guy, young players "making the leap") just to be at HOU or Indy's level. Also, remember that even though Cleveland has Kyrie Irving, and despite all the "Lebron go home" rumors, there just aren't that many free agents eager to join that team until it actually has a respectable record. In fact, even if the Cavs do start winning, being located in Cleveland is still a challenge for trying to land a free agent-- it was reported in 2010 that Lebron tried, and failed, to convince Bosh to join him in Cleveland. So, I wouldn't say that Cleveland's "foreseeable future" (as defined by, say, odds of getting into the conference finals within the next 4-5 seasons) is better than Indy's or Houston's.
I think Parsons would too. George would move to SG. Harden could easily replace Hill. (or Harden could return to his natural 6th man role hehe)
The post said brighter future. Indiana is a great team now but most of their players are close to or at their potential. West, Hill, arguably Hibbert are not gonna get much better or are going to be in a decline in a couple of seasons. As good as George is and can be, I still think Houston has more of a brighter future. But if I was going to pick a team now and maybe the next season, I would pick indiana
Indiana can't afford to bring back the same team next year and absolutely won't be able to the next year when George is off his rookie deal. It will be interesting to see what kind of moves Indy makes this summer.
How good do y'all think Hibbert can be? Can he ever be a dependable 18-9 guy like he's been in the playoffs? I love that guy when he's tuned in.
