Indiana had a head start at the beginning of the year because they returned the same starting lineup from the previous year and were healthy. Other teams found a rhythm towards the all star break and have been able to handle them. They don't generate enough offense and they don't have a playmaker at the point guard position. They also look worn down and their chemistry is not what it was. Larry Bird tried to make some moves to bolster the team without wrecking its core foundation. Evan Turner could still prove valuable in the playoffs as he made a couple of big plays to help beat Miami.
I don't buy the strength of schedule argument. Strength of schedule should not affect a good team that much. Maybe a little, but not like that. Look at Portland. People were saying that they had it easy earlier on. Sure they sank a little after the ASG. But they aren't imploding like the Pacers are. Something clearly went wrong. They aren't playing like how they use to play.
There is a theory among NBA-types that you can have one headcase on your team and still be OK, but if you have 2 or more, they start breeding. I wonder whether this applies to the Pacers. After the Artest brawl, Larry Bird went out of his way to acquire only guys without discipline issues-- getting rid of guys like Artest, Stephen Jackson and Tinsley and acquiring/keeping the likes of Mike Dunleavy, Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Jeff Foster, Peja Stojakovic, and George Hill. Lance Stephenson was one notable exception that Bird took a chance on and he was panning out nicely early this year. But then Bird thought that their "culture" was strong enough and added Bynum and Turner while trading away Granger. And now things don't look too good.
It looks this way because Green and Plumlee got to play and contribute for the Suns. On last year's Pacers team neither really was a regular contributor. If they had stayed in Indy, would they have been contributors this season?
No. Green could run and jump and play free and easy in Phoenix this year. When he actually has to think and fit into a system, he has the IQ of a potted plant and just wilts. Plumlee seemed a pleasant surprise in Phoenix, though his first half was way way better than his second half, so I'd wait to see if it was a fluke. He is athletic. Scola has been way more inconsistent than anyone hoped, but IMO he had contributed more than Green and Plumlee would have. The Pacers gave up a late 1st round pick to Phoenix, but they figure to need every dollar this offseason to re-sign Lance anyway on the Bird stuff, As to the Copeland signing, it was BEFORE the trade for Scola, so Scola coming available kind of took on the role of Copeland and thus Cope became only injury insurance for West and Scola, injury insurance that was never needed. On the Bynum signing. you have to remember that nothing was given up, just a 1M gamble that he could rehab his knees, and they needed to cut the 15th man, Orlando Johnson, to make room. No big loss. Hibbert insists that he and Bynum got along great and played video games together, so who knows. He didn't get healthy. But I doubt he caused the chemistry issues. The Granger trade looks to be a mistake, even though Granger was 100% broken down and figured to contribute absolutely NOTHING on the court. He apparently was a locker room presence, though, and Turner has turned out to also contribute absolutely NOTHING on the court. The saving grace for that trade might be the Lavoy Allen throw-in. He's not in the rotation but is younger, athletic, and played well in his few opportunities. If they re-sign him, he could be a capable backup given the ages of Scola and West. Hard to say what the verdict is yet on Bird though. The team chemistry is obviously strange for reasons we don't know, but Bird does, and he is likely to be very busy this offseason.
I don't know how in light of all what is happening with Indiana (chemistry), majority of Rockets fans would still gladly get rid of Parsons for a third superstar. Parsons has an upside Love and Melo will never have and will cancel their higher offensive output compared to Parsons. For those reasons, the only players I would trade Parsons for are those who play his position, are better than him and can have same positive influence on the team he does. Yeah, I realize this probably means Durant and Lebron only (with PG being a distant third option), which means he is untouchable IMO.
good article speculating on Indiana's chemistry issues: http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/10995309/indiana-pacers-burning-questions sounds to me like this argues that roughy... 60% of the problem is Lance being immature and selfish, rubbing pretty much everyone the wrong way, 10% is on Hibbert for being too insecure and sensitive about his stats and his role, 10% is on George Hill for feeling marginalized by his declining role, mostly at Lance's expense, 10% is on Paul George for being a little overwhelmed by the increased attention that goes with stardom and that caused flare-ups in his personal life, and 10% is on Bird for failing to deliver on a bench upgrade, for miscalculating on Bynum (but at little risk), but not really deserving much blame for bungling the Granger deal, because DG was actually pretty detached from the team at this point even off the court, and was ineffective on the court It seems to indicate that the rumors of player X sleeping with the wife of player Y are likely completely bogus.
So parsons is the 3rd best SF in the game to you? He is not better than Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Batum, George, Melo, Ariza or Igoudala IMO. Maybe a couple I am missing. Not sure why Parsons is being discussed though.
You and the poster above you are totally missing my point. I'm talking about the intangibles Parsons brings to this team that Love or Melo could never bring. No, Parsons is not better than all those SFs you listed IN A VACUUM. He is a better fit than majority of them for this team though. You sound like you didn't watch Harden acting childish because Dwight was center of our offense against Portland... This is being discussed here because Larry Bird was messing with team's chemistry and is suffering the consequences, and because I'm sick of all the threads in GARM that would so happily throw Parsons out of this team for any star that would want to play here. Didn't Pacers' example teach you anything?
Speaking of Evan Turner, I haven't seen this bad of a contract year performance since Aaron Brooks 2010-11
I'm not saying he was worthy of his salary, but you'd expect a guy entrusted with an important bench role on a contender during his contract year to at least show up to play. Instead we see lackluster effort, poor body language and a total inability to impact the game. I honestly feel sorry for Vogel that he has this dude sitting on his bench.
Depends on if you think being a empty stat stuffer while totally dominating the ball is a good thing or not.
I could understand Bird's thinking on trading Granger. Since George was most like the entrenched starter, it was soon going to be awkward for Granger to be coming off the bench. The healthier he got, the more discontented he would being a 2nd team guy. Getting Turner might not be the smartest, but who else could they have gotten at the traded deadline? Bynum has not played at all to mess up anything. Was a gamble from the beginning. Their real problem is Hibbert. Suddenly became p***y. They should just play Mahinmi more. Where's Hansbrough when they need him? (maybe shouldn't have traded him)
^I would imagine that Arron Afflalo was available at the deadline. He's an absolute competitor, 2-way player and could have really elevated Indiana's bench production
