# If the Pacers were in the West...



## panthera_pardus (Dec 29, 2003)

If the Pacers were in the West, what seed would they get?


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

i think they would just barely claim home court advantage, its tough racin against wolves, spurs, dallas, sacs and lakers


----------



## froggyvk (Sep 12, 2002)

If they were in the West they would not play the defensive scheme that they play in the East. That's why it's too tough to say.


----------



## Basketball Fan (Sep 12, 2003)

Probably the 5th or 6th seed, meaning infront of or behind Dallas.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

4th I think. Sac, San an, Minny and Dallas would be hard to beat. 

Anyone who put they wont make the playoffs is nothing but a bias hater.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 4th I think. Sac, San an, Minny and Dallas would be hard to beat.
> 
> Anyone who put they wont make the playoffs is nothing but a bias hater.


:yes:

4th I say as well. The Pacers have a very good record against the west (17-6) and although it's a small sample, I think they would still be playoff-calibur if they were in the west.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

5th at best, and probably 6th. Assuming each team is healthy there's no way they do better than the Spurs, Lakers, Kings or Twolves, but maybe the Mavs...probably not though. 6th seed.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 5th at best, and probably 6th. Assuming each team is healthy there's no way they do better than the Spurs, Lakers, Kings or Twolves, but maybe the Mavs...probably not though. 6th seed.


They have a better record against west teams than any of the teams you just named.


----------



## bzth (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>panthera_pardus</b>!
> If the Pacers were in the West, what seed would they get?


[strike]OMG. ARE YOU CRAZY??????

INDIANA IS IN THE EAST!!! THEY ARE NOT IN THE WEST.

MAN SOME PPL ARE NIMRODS. LOOK AT A MAP OF THE UNITED STATES. PLEASE.[/strike]

Please do not attack other posters. IF you do it again you will be suspended.


----------



## froggyvk (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: If the Pacers were in the West...*



> Originally posted by <b>bzth</b>!
> 
> 
> [strike]OMG. ARE YOU CRAZY??????
> ...


The first victim of Froggy's ignore list.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> 
> They have a better record against west teams than any of the teams you just named.


Unfortunately your argument sucks, because the Pacers also play more Eastern teams than any of those teams I've mentioned, and they only play those Western teams twice a year instead of four times a year. Physically and psychologically that means a lot.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It's not like the Pacers are vastly inferior to say...the T-Wolves or Spurs with regards to talent. They're a very deep and talented team at every spot except for point guard.

JO has looked very good this year. Artest is amazing. Harrington is quite the luxury to have off the bench.

I see no real reason to seperate them out from the top of the west.

Again. The gap between east and west is mostly one word long: Shaq. If Shaq comes to play no one in the west can even pretend to guard him.

But that goes for the rest of the west as well.

Here's a better question: If the Lakers were healthy and Shaq gave a damn, would anyone out in the west even matter?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I picked 4th, though they could go from 3-6th without much shock from me.


----------



## tpb2 (Oct 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: If the Pacers were in the West...*



> Originally posted by <b>bzth</b>!
> 
> 
> OMG. ARE YOU CRAZY??????
> ...


therealdeal and jockrider had a kid


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your argument sucks, because the Pacers also play more Eastern teams than any of those teams I've mentioned, and they only play those Western teams twice a year instead of four times a year. Physically and psychologically that means a lot.


So you think if they doubled their games against west teams, their record against them would drop through the floor? That doesnt make much sence to me. I dont think any of the teams outside of a healthy Lakers squad is a huge leap over the Pacers.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> 
> So you think if they doubled their games against west teams, their record against them would drop through the floor? That doesnt make much sence to me. I dont think any of the teams outside of a healthy Lakers squad is a huge leap over the Pacers.


It wouldn't drop through the floor, but how can you confidently say that the Pacers record against the West would stay the same if they played the West as much as Western teams play the West? 

I will give the Pacers props, they are very good. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, they haven't proved anything yet in the playoffs.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> It wouldn't drop through the floor, but how can you confidently say that the Pacers record against the West would stay the same if they played the West as much as Western teams play the West?
> ...


You have to remember, R-Star isn't saying they are better than the top 5 teams in the west. Just that the Pacers have proved that they belong in that mix. None of those teams have been conclusively better than the Pacers this year. And besides the Lakers, none of them really present a team to fear for the Pacers if they met them in the NBA Finals.

If the Pacers get to the finals against say, the Spurs or Wolves, things could be VERY interesting.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

6th is the most reasonable.

2nd is funny enough.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> You have to remember, R-Star isn't saying they are better than the top 5 teams in the west. Just that the Pacers have proved that they belong in that mix. None of those teams have been conclusively better than the Pacers this year. And besides the Lakers, none of them really present a team to fear for the Pacers if they met them in the NBA Finals.
> ...


Exactly what Im trying to get at. Im not trying to put them over any of the big west teams, but they're right up there with them IMO. And for the first time since 2000, we will have another finals actualy worth watching.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

Pacers 47-16 *E.C. 29-10 W.C. 18-6*

Kings 46-16 *E.C. 21-3 W.C. 25-13*

if Sac. played on the Eastern Confernce they could probably get 70 wins. yes Indiana has a better record against WC but they play less games against those teams on the West.


They would probably get 4th or 5th seed.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> Pacers 47-16 *E.C. 29-10 W.C. 18-6*
> 
> Kings 46-16 *E.C. 21-3 W.C. 25-13*
> ...


Sac would probably not get 70 wins out east. I dont see how thats realistic or possible.


----------



## fsaucedo (May 3, 2003)

If the Pacers were in the West, I think they would be a strong fifth. I think Sacramento, LA Lakers, Minnesota, and San Antonio are better teams. Between Indiana and Dallas, I have to go with Indiana because they have a better inside presence with Jermaine O'neal.

I am really rooting for Indiana. I think they can make the finals very interesting against anybody from the west. I think they would still lose against one of the top four teams in the west, but they would at least legitimatize the NBA Finals.


----------



## DJRaz (Aug 20, 2003)

i think the east-west thing is played up a little too much, especially this year. a good team is a good team, and indy is a good team. i have been watching them and detroit (especially since rashweed showed p) stomp on western teams all year. 

there is MORE power in the west this year, for sure, but don't think that means there is all better teams in the west. after the lakers talent level -dropoff it's wide open to me. and the spurs and lakers are the only elite west teams that are champs, the rest are all chumps like the pacers and pistons. 

the confusing juggernaut that was shaq, kobe, phil, and hollywood is what shifted the majority of the power to the west, the rest have just been window dressing.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Indiana would be 5th or 6th in the West. They could go from 4-7 really. The schedule is just so much tougher out west it's ridiculous. Imagine playing teams like Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, T-Wolves, Grizzlies, Rockets, Nuggets, Jazz, Blazers 4 times a season??? All the teams i mentioned here are tough tough teams to beat. It just wears you down.

Out east you get to play crap teams like Hawks, Magic, Sixers, Cavs, Heat, Raptors, Wizards 4 times a season. That's a huge difference. Heck, you the BUCKS are FIFTH in the east!!! Not to take anything from them, but no way they make the playoffs in the west. Teams like Nuggets, Blazers, Jazz will all make it before the Bucks.

The east is extremely weak. A lot of the teams in the east don't even deserve to go to the playoffs. Teams like Nuggets, Jazz, and Blazers are much more deserving.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

people act like the west is invincible

they are better--but the best east team isnt gonna be horrible in the west


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>c_dog</b>!
> 
> Out east you get to play crap teams like Hawks, Magic, Sixers, Cavs, Heat, Raptors, Wizards 4 times a season. That's a huge difference. Heck, you the BUCKS are FIFTH in the east!!! Not to take anything from them, but no way they make the playoffs in the west. Teams like Nuggets, Blazers, Jazz will all make it before the Bucks.


Of course these teams that you deride are the ones that pop up out of nowhere and beat overconfident western teams.

The Lakers in particular have an achilles heal for lower tier eastern conference teams. They lost to the friggin Hawks. And no. Not the Theo Ratliff, SAR Hawks. No. Not the Rasheed Wallace Hawks.

THE STEPHEN JACKSON, C. CRAWFORD CREW!?!!!
:laugh: 

And the Bucks appear to be for real. I pity the fool that goes into Milwaukee expecting to just show up and be given a win. They know how to run **** in Milwaukee.

Meanwhile. The Nuggets...well seems they got stomped pretty good by the Pistons the other day. Same as the Sonics.

The East does suck. But the creme of the crop out East deserves some respect.


----------



## Cometsbiggestfan (May 14, 2003)

4th


----------



## Midnight_Marauder (Dec 1, 2003)

4th.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course these teams that you deride are the ones that pop up out of nowhere and beat overconfident western teams.
> ...


That was one game. Truth is most east teams get destroyed by Western teams. Just look at the record. The hawks game over the Lakers don't happen very often.

Hey, the Kings lost to Heat the other day with a healthy Webber. These kinds of losses happen, but trust me, it's very very rare. Funny how a good team can lose to a bad team once and everybody remembers, yet they can beat them every other time, and ppl act like it's no big deal eh?

Bucks are for real in the EAST. They may beat a couple western teams on occasions, but that's it. They've only won 7 games against the west this season. They're 7-14 against the west. That's only .333 :dead: They'd be worse than the suns(12-27 against west)!!!


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> You have to remember, R-Star isn't saying they are better than the top 5 teams in the west. Just that the Pacers have proved that they belong in that mix. None of those teams have been conclusively better than the Pacers this year. And besides the Lakers, none of them really present a team to fear for the Pacers if they met them in the NBA Finals.
> ...


I wasn't trying to say he was arguing that the Pacers are favorites to win the title or something like that. Merely saying that the top 5 teams in the West, when healthy are better than the Pacers. The Mavs are the only top 5 team that might not be, but I'm fairly certain they are better.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course these teams that you deride are the ones that pop up out of nowhere and beat overconfident western teams.
> ...


 

A one point loss on the road to the Hawks is still terrible, but let's not kid ourselves; the Lakers didn't have Malone or Kobe and lost by one point to the Hawks on the road, and just a few weeks earlier had beaten the SAR-Ratliff Hawks at home by 46 points without Shaq or Malone. 

The East sucks.


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

*
7th seed
*


----------



## KTLuvsMikeBibby (Jul 28, 2003)

4 or 5 i would say..very impressive for a east team..anyone who said higher than 3 is either a homer, doesn't watch west teams, or both in the case of many espn commentators


----------



## KTLuvsMikeBibby (Jul 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>c_dog</b>!
> 
> Hey, the Kings lost to Heat the other day with a healthy Webber. These kinds of losses happen, but trust me, it's very very rare. Funny how a good team can lose to a bad team once and everybody remembers, yet they can beat them every other time, and ppl act like it's no big deal eh?


well 1st of all webber isn't anywhere close to being healthy, secondly the kings have had a very hard time winning in miami..wonder if south beach has anything to do with it? who knows, but for whatever reason they have like a 3-13 record or something there since moving to sacramento..weird


----------

