You're listening to the Back Home Network presented by Home
Field Apparel. Hi folks welcome back to Crimson
cast again. I'm in the the pilot seat.
It's so weird. Galen's just sitting there.
I'm going to put him on mute. He can't say anything.
I can say what I see you about to talk I.
Can't talk. This is like trying to trust
early self driving cars. Like really it has that like I'm
assuming at some point we're going to like careen off of a
Cliff. So welcome to.
Waymo, everybody we are. We're coming up on a crosswalk.
What are we going to do? It's got us to do a live read.
Oh my gosh, no. Welcome back to Crimson Cast.
We're having some fun. I have Galen, of course, we have
Tony Adronia because we are here to talk about Pacers.
I know that we are AIU focus podcast, but you know, last year
Tony and I dipped our toe in the Pacers waters had just haven't
had the personal time to put into it.
But what a run by the Pacers second finals in in franchise
history. It's something that we need to
talk about because there is you know, there's this Hoosier
adjacent pieces. Let's get a joke, like the joke
would be like let's talk about Thomas Bryant, but let's
actually talk about Thomas Bryant.
We'll get to that. Just some great stuff.
But as always, you know, if you are going to the finals, you
will see home field apparel in the Pacers store.
They have some great stuff. You know that coming off the
heels of May with a great racing jacket that Alex, Alex Pelo
wanted to to get. I think him and paddle award
both got it. And then Pelo won the 500 and I
don't think he was wearing the jacket in his car, but maybe you
know, shortly thereafter. If you want to get any home
field gear, check him out some fantastic stuff and use the
promo code home 23 to let them know that Crimson cast sent you.
Also check us out on sub stack crimsoncast.substack.com.
We have all kinds of insider VIP videos.
Tony and I've been hopping on doing some pastry stuff.
You also just get a nice e-mail letting you know that a new
podcast is available. And so that's always fun.
And then finally, you're not watching us on YouTube.
You should check us out. We're going try screen right
here. You're going to see some some
fun stuff. You see what Galen's drinking
looks like? Pepsi Cherry.
Pepsi, Pepsi 0 Cherry, who's not sponsoring us?
So we'll be censoring that later, right?
We need to get like Doctor Thunder, we need to get
something like that or oh, and Tony's drinking water.
OK, so we're doing all kinds of beverage stuff that you coffee.
This is all the some fun stuff you see on YouTube.
I think we're pushing 7000 subscribers strong.
It's a great way to get podcasts.
I've been listening to a lot of podcasts on YouTube as well.
It's fun. It's what all the kids are
doing. They say.
So guys, here we are. Let's recap a little bit of the
Knicks Pacers series. Pacers win in six.
I'll just kind of open it up. What were your guys's thoughts
on the series as a whole in the final game six that the Pacers
kind of took control and won? Tony, why don't you start?
I'd love to get your thoughts. Yeah, the the guys, it was
open-ended there, Scott. I know, I know.
Getting out of the cockpit seat, I'm I'm not in the pilot.
Turn off the autopilot for a second there.
We're back on now. The no, the the next series was
fantastic in terms of just, I mean, everything you could
probably have asked for as a Pacers fan, like best case
scenario pretty much happened. You know, you went in the
Garden, which like I think most people would have been happy if
you, you won one. You know, you, you assume that
you, you probably are going to lose 1 of the ones at home.
They did they lose game three, they bounce back game four, win
that. You lose at the garden, bounce
back game six, win handily wrap up the series at home.
Like prior to, you know, I was, I was so nervous for for Game 6,
but it was like prior to the series, if you're like the
Pacers are going to have a chance to clinch game six at
home, you know, you're like taking that not, you know, 10
times out of 10. So I I thought Rick Carlisle was
masterful. I think he has been obviously
he's one of the best coaches in the game and he has been for a
long time, But I really think he's flexing his muscles right
now this playoffs. I think with the Bucks and then
just the dismantling of a Cavs team that I do want to remind
people was was pretty similarly set up to this Oklahoma City
Thunder team. And so, you know, flexing his
muscles there. And then I think in the Knicks
series, you know, the Knicks would throw some wrinkles out,
you know, props to Thibodeau, but Carlisle would always come
out the next game with with adjustments for that.
And so, you know, for me, it was just like him flex his muscles.
The Pacers stars came to play most of the time.
You know, Tyrese kind of had a tough Game 5, but and then
Indiana's bench really just outplayed the Knicks bench top
to bottom. I think they outscored him by 70
or 80 points in the entirety of the series.
So, you know, it's all the things that have made the Pacers
great the last two years. They continued to shine in this
series with the Knicks and there wasn't really a lot of surprises
outside of maybe that Thomas Bryant 3 point barrage where,
you know, it was really out of character of what the Pacers
were doing. They just won doing what they've
done. Yeah, I mean, I echo almost all
of that. Tony hit all the great points
there. Look, the the big thing for me
was as follows, like the the setup in the series, everything
hinged on that comeback in the fourth quarter of Game 1.
And I, I think that much as the, you know, the, the, the, the
Bucks probably will always have questions about like, could they
have knocked off the Pacers if they don't have the injury to
Lillard? Like what happens in that
scenario? I, you know, I don't know if the
Pacers maybe they win game two, game three-game four and it's
back to the Garden up three one anyway.
But I, I heard this on one of the podcasts covering it.
It's like when that shot went in that sent it to overtime that
that bouncing shot from Halliburton.
It's almost like the Pacers stole the team of destiny
narrative from the Knicks mentally and emotionally, and
suddenly they were the team that was getting the lucky bounce in
that series. And so that's how it plays out
the rest of the way ultimately. But look, whatever, however you
want to break this down, this was a close series between the
Knicks and the Pacers, but it was just, it was clear to me
that the Pacers were just a bit better.
They were better constructed, they were better coached.
The Knicks had better overall talent amongst their starting
five, but that's kind of a poor way to evaluate the two teams
because the Pacers weren't built on the conceptualization of
having the best starting five. And I'm with Tony, like I, you
know, the Game 5 was disappointing, but it's the kind
of game it's not too different from what the Thunder looked
like in game three against the Timberwolves.
They didn't have to win that game.
And I think they got about midway through that third
quarter and they were like, we're not winning this game.
We're not going to worry too much about it.
And frankly, I found all of the questioning of the Pacers effort
and intensity level in that game to be silly given that it's A7
game series for a reason. It's not a bowl game in
football. It's not a playoff game in
football. It's not a winner take all.
The Pacers had given themselves the cushion of being able to
lose that game, you know, do a strategic retreat essentially
and put themselves in a position where they could capitalize in
Game 6. And if you look at what Carlisle
did, whether whether it was intentional that he held Nemhard
off of defending Brunson until Game 6 to give him a totally
different look, or whether it was forced by Nesmith's injury,
either way, him knowing he had that in his bag of tricks that
he could throw out there just adds to the overall, I think,
excellent coaching job that he's done and the excellent
managerial job that he's done with this roster and how they've
approached it. So it was heartening to me that
my one big regret is I went to game three.
I went to Game 4I, flew back from Atlanta on Saturday.
I should have just gone to Game 6.
I would have paid for the ticket because that looked like an
absolutely nutty, amazing experience in that arena.
I'm I'm jealous that I was not there.
So with the effort piece, you're you're not with Greg Doyle's
line of questioning for Siakam after Game 5.
Set the whole thing and I know why.
Greg, Greg, The problem is Greg Doyle was trained in an era
where you had to ask those questions because you had to
sell newspapers the next day. Like we knew so much less about
basketball in the 90s and 2000. It was funny 'cause see, Occam's
answer was actually great. She's like, bro.
You still talking like bro? We still talking like bro?
What? What are you?
Doing it's just like again, and, and I, I had friends talking
about this because I think for a lot of people, this is still how
we evaluate basketball. And I think you can ask those
questions at the college level where you do have to like have
it all on the table in a game because it's a winner take all.
But there's ebbs and flows in the NBA on purpose.
And I just felt like the idea that how could that team play
harder than you? Well, of course, the Knicks were
literally backs against the wall.
They were in front of their crowd who they had disappointed
in the first two games. Like under the best of
circumstances, that is an almost impossible task.
And again, it's exactly what happened with Oklahoma City in
Game 3 when they went in and got buzz sawed by the Timberwolves,
A Timberwolves team that then could not repeat it in Game 4.
So anybody I think who's been involved in professional sport
or competitive sport or just understands how the flows of
these things go. And Tony, please tell me if I'm
wrong on this. But like there, there is going
to be a moment a great team or a team that's really coalesced
will come up short in the effort department.
But if you've given yourself the cushion, I don't think that's
the right time to ask a question.
Ask that question in Game 7. Don't ask that question in Game
5. Yeah, yeah, certainly so.
And and I think like, I think Pascal was really just trying to
find a way to quantify what happened.
I don't really think he truly like, you know, that effort is
always kind of the word people use when somebody gets the floor
wiped with them. But it's not necessarily just
effort. It's execution.
You know, it's, it's all these different things.
And like Pascal is just trying to simplify like how they played
harder than us. And then it got into this weird
semantics thing of like, how does that happen?
It's like, well, that then Pascal was like, that's
basketball, dude. Like every every time that
happens. When building off of this, you
know, you got you guys had a lot of things for this, but you
know, I I look at this is, you know, game one, people could
look back at that and be like, man, if that Halliburton shot
doesn't go in, you know, you could easily be like, oh, well,
you know, this game would be going back, you'd be going back
to New York for Game 7. But as both of you said, like, I
don't think that's the case because I think in the end,
these are both two really good teams.
The Pacers looked better. But I'm a kind of echoing what
Ryan Rosilo said on his podcast that, you know, like you can't
just like one affects the other. So like, if, if the Knicks win
game one, maybe the Pacers still win Game 2.
But all of this changes where it's like the Pacers were able
in Game 5 to not not try, but it's like they knew they had
game six at home. Not that you're like not trying,
but you knew you had that. If they didn't know that, maybe
they play that game differently. And this is also a racilo thing
is that you can't teach your coach desperation.
Like the Knicks had it in game five.
They knew they had to win three in a row.
So I, I don't, I don't think it's as easy as just saying
that. The thing that I'll say for the
series as a whole is, you know, with the Knicks, you're right,
GAIL. And like, maybe they're top five
or better, but it's like this is the ultimate.
Like this is not a feature. It's a, you know, it's not a
bug. It's a feature of this team.
Tibbs plays six guys and so they're running so many minutes.
Also, their two guys, Brunson and Cat, are just such unique
players. You see it with the Pacers, how
they built around Halliburton and they found guys who can work
within the Halliburton structure and Hal Burton's a unique player
in his own. You saw it with the Knicks where
they have these moments where it's like this is not really a
team built around Brunson. It's not really a team built
around Cat. It's like trying to build around
both of them. You couldn't do that.
And for me, the moment where I felt great, it didn't work out
so much in game in Game 5. But you know, you had Game 3445
and six are. He had a lot of moments where
it's like, this is a big moment. The Knicks need a shot.
And it's like Landry Shamit's taking that shot.
And I'm like, he made a couple of like, that's great because I
will take that all day long. And to me, that was where I'm
like, man, this is a wild moment because like, Tim's going deep
into his bench. You're playing Landry Shamit.
You're playing Precious Ochua. It's like DeAndre Wright or
Laundre Wright. Like it's like these guys Dion
Wright. Yeah.
It's like we're in a good spot and like I'm fine with this
series being in Landry Shamit's hands.
Well, I'm, I'm curious what Tony's thoughts are on this, but
I think in our last pod that we did previewing Eastern
Conference finals, I might have made this point or I might not
have. My brain doesn't work very well
anymore, it feels like. But I remember back when the
Pacers lost to the Cavs about, you know, a little over a decade
ago. And they they had gotten to the
Eastern Conference finals utilizing the build that one
would use in the 2000s. You know, a large person in the
middle and a, a group that was kind of complimentary to the
idea that you were going to score through efficiency in the
post. And it was clear in that series
that that was no longer the formula that you could use to
get to the, the, the NBA championship.
Like you, you, you're not going to win a title that way.
This felt like the inverse, like the Pacers were now on the front
foot from a structural perspective and the Knicks
designed A-Team around what you would have used eight years ago
to get to the finals. And I, and I just think
ultimately it's the, it's where Indiana is so lucky to have Rick
Carlisle. And you know, I, I give
Pritchard and, and the rest of his GM team their flowers.
Like they saw they got lucky and we'll talk about how they got
lucky in a couple of ways with the personnel assemblage, but
they saw the future and they figured out how to coach and
structure the team around that. And you know, look at the
Knicks, like they go and get a dominant big man who can't
really play defense. They've got a ball dominant
guard who doesn't really play defense and they have to keep
those guys on the floor because they can't score.
But by having them on the floor, they can't play defense
effectively. And they've got a coach and
Tibbs, who is very much a coach of the the late 2000s, early
twenty 10's and how he conceives of the NBA working.
And it doesn't feel like it works that way anymore.
And all you have to do is point to the Thunder and the way that
they're constructed compared to some of the other teams in the
Western Conference, and you see the exact same pattern.
Yeah. I mean, I, I think you kind of
hit the nail on the head there and just how these two
franchises essentially play basketball.
And, and one, I know I'm biased being a Patriots fan, but one is
much more aesthetically pleasing than the other.
I can tell you that much. You know, the, the, the Knicks
kind of grinded out ball screen late shot ball screen isolation
like that. That's like I said, late, late
2000s, early twenty 10s style of basketball.
And really, you know, like the Warriors kind of flip things on
its head with with Steph and those guys, but that's and the
Spurs as well. But like that's the style of
play that Indiana's used under Rick Carlisle.
And so, you know, it's it's fantastic to see.
Like you said, the Thunder are very similarly set up.
But yeah, I I don't think, I think the Knicks kind of went
all in with this group going to get Bridges and we're going to
talk about that here in a bit. But to me that that's not really
a a roster that's that's set up to win an NBA title.
Just the way that it it's currently constructed.
They've got good talent, but it's definitely not two way
talent in in the way that it's constructed.
And then if you're only going to play 6-7 guys, you're really
banking on a lot of good injury luck.
Well, this is something I find fascinating in sports.
It happens across all different sports.
You have these moments like, you know, Tony mentioned that the
Warriors where everyone's playing big and then suddenly
it's like, holy crap, this teams playing small and they're
shooting and shooting a lot of threes.
This is the new wave. And it's like, wow, why did
anybody think of this? Like, well, going against the
grain means exactly that. Like you need to go against the
grain and, you know, then suddenly all these teams in the
last couple years were building around two or three stars, you
know, trying to get two stars and building out around that.
And like, let's kind of get big again.
And then the Pacers go against the grain.
And I I think it was not so much like let's do something
different. It's just they they looked at
what they had, they saw something unique in Halliburton.
It's like we're going to build around this.
And they did. And it was going against the
grain. But it's so you see it all the
time. Like it happens in the NFL where
team suddenly you start playing a wide open style.
It's like, why do I think of this?
Like, well, because everyone who does groupthink, it's like
because you're all doing the same thing to do something
different, you have to do something different and go
against the grain. And it's it's wild.
It looks so stark when it works, but you know, it's, it's cool to
be on this side of it where it does look like we've positioned
ourselves to have a nice spot for the next couple of years.
But it's, and this is where you have to so one of the great
subplots that we heard and read about in a lot of podcasts and
articles about the, the, the, the, the Eastern Conference and
Western Conference Finals combined was that both the
Thunder and the Pacers, and now it's the Finals themselves.
Both teams were built off of the proceeds of respective Paul
George transactions, which is cool 'cause if you roll that
back, I think it goes all the way back to like 2008 in terms
of like where all the asset trails go.
But so much of what happens in the NBA is essentially a, it's a
dice roll. This might work based upon what
we think is going to happen, but you really have to have things
fall your way. And we've seen a ton of teams
make big bets on certain players or certain transactions, and
they just simply have not worked.
The Brooklyn Nets essentially for their entire history in
Brooklyn have been an example of this.
The Pacers nearly got on the wrong side of history because if
you'll recall like that, the Halliburton trade happens in I
think like February of 2022. What else almost happened in
2022 nearly altered the trajectory of this franchise
forever. Because if you'll recall, all
the buzz that offseason and the actual thing that happened was
the Pacers making a Max offer to DeAndre Ayton, which the Suns
matched. So he ends up not coming here.
They don't acquire Pascal Siakam until January of 2024.
And, you know, part of that Ayton thing was the Suns wanted
Miles Turner and there was supposed to be some kind of
potential sign and trade there. That doesn't happen.
Ayton is now with the the Blazers, and I don't.
If you want to frighten yourself, go look at his
basketball reference page from the last two years where I think
he he played only 40 games this season.
I mean, that's a door the Pacers were ready to walk through.
They were not allowed to walk through it.
They end up having to restructure around this roster
and this roster is the one that ends up taking them to
back-to-back Ecfs and then the finals.
You need though, I mean, the there's a story.
The Warriors were ready to trade, I think Klay Thompson for
Kevin Love and that was going to be done.
And then it's like, no, we're not.
You know that. I think the the, the Minnesota
backed out on that one. Here's kind of my sliding door
as you look at the history of the Pacers is I'm going to go
back not that far, but I'm going to go to 2020.
So this is the lineup for the 2020-2021 Pacers in in number of
minutes. I'm going to go with the top 12
guys. This is not that it's only four
years, five years ago. You know, Sabonis, Malcolm
Brogdon, Victor Oladipo, Karis LeVert, Miles Turner, Justin
Holiday, TJ Warren, TJ McConnell, Oshie Present, Doug
McDermott, Jeremy Lamb and Aaron Holiday.
I mean, they flipped a lot of those guys.
Now to me that the other sliding doors moment is the coach of
that team was Nate Bjorkman and but but this is something that
we talked about. Wanted to be hired from again,
yeah. Well, we talked about the Item
fight a lot. That was his first year
coaching. You could have, you know, in a
way. The Pacers always get chided for
being too conservative and not making any changes.
They fired him after one year and they hired Rick Carlisle.
That looked to be a good choice. Too often sometimes we see teams
and, you know, sports where they, they, they give guys too
much legal. You could have very easily been
like, hey, man, Bjorkman's first year, we'll give him two or
three more years. And then you suddenly slide into
the abyss of where the Hornets are, where every season you're
just like that, you know? So I, I look at that as a real
sliding doors moment, too. Tony, I want to hear from you,
but ironically, where is Nate Bjorkman coaching now?
Don't know with the Blazers. He's an assistant coach with the
Blazers right now. So.
And I want to hear, you know. Yeah, the other funny thing that
I've heard is, you know, through all this, obviously we traded to
get Halliburton from the Kings and the Kings traded deer and
fox. And I've heard like one of the
podcasts, one of the this the Kings GM is now saying we're
looking at a point guard in the in the in the draft this year.
If I was the owner of the Kings, like you're fired, like you're
just fired right now anyway. It oh, it's insane.
But to that point, I think where Pritchard and Chad Buchanan and
those guys really deserve a lot of credit is the projecting
they've been able to do when essentially they've they've lost
all leverage in their last two big transactions or or really
three with Paul George. He made it known I won out.
So it's like, well, crap, man. Like Pacers like don't have any
leverage. Everybody knows that he wants
out of there. He turns that in.
He projects that all the depot and Sabonis are going to project
into pretty solid players. Both turn into All Stars.
All the depot says he wants out turns that into who did we?
Always hurt, by the way, just throwing that like, gets hurt
and right, yeah, double, double whammy.
Who did we even acquire for Oladipo?
Was that a? We got hurt.
It was part of a deal with Harden.
I think we were part of a three-way.
I'm doing this by memory. And that got us LeVert.
Though Paris LeVert for Oladipo, yeah.
And then so bonus it, it was like, hey, miles weren't going
to work. You knew you had to get rid of
them. And then you turn that into
Tyrese and Buddy. Yeah.
Just to clarify, the the Oladipo trade was a four team trade that
involved the Rockets, the Nets, and the Cavs.
The the Rockets got Oladipo, the Pacers got LeVert and the Pacers
got a second round pick. So that was that was essentially
the Pacers. Side and they quite literally
turned. Into Nemhart, I believe.
I think that was the Nemhart pick.
Well then, in the pace, in classic Pacers fashion,
literally as they acquire LeVert, he gets cancer and
misses. Misses like six weeks or
something like that in his physical to become a Pacer.
So, you know, it was at that point where I'm just like, all
right, like these guys are just this organization's cursed.
And then within two years are in the Eastern Conference finals,
within 3, they're in the NBA Finals, which is just insane.
But the fact that Prichard has been able to leverage those
assets, project on guys like Tyrese, project on guys like
Sabonis, like that's pretty much the NBA draft process, right?
You're trying to hit on things of, of projections to me that
that speaks volumes kind of to, you know, their, their
evaluation process and and how that they can project what guys
would be able to do. And then with like a Nim heart
and a knees myth project in advance more than they even can
and say like, Hey, let's lock you up now to these deals that
maybe don't make a lot of sense at the time.
Like, man, they're really paying Andrew Nimhart a lot or they're
really paying easement a lot. And now those dudes are on value
contracts. The thing that I find
interesting is there a couple people you listen to are kind of
saying, oh, the Pacers, you know, they went all in to get
Siakam. It's like they didn't like they
they, you know, they signed Bruce Brown in that offseason
after the Nuggets won it all. They gave him 20 million, which
was basically like, I've heard this called.
He was like human trade exemption, like you just you
sign up for 20. That was way more than anybody
was willing to pay. But it's a it's a great number
to trade. The second year was a team
option. So it was basically a one year
contract. They trade Bruce Brown, they
trade two first round picks, which were that year.
So they already are gone. And one of them wasn't theirs.
It was a Thunder pick that was going to be the end of the
draft. They were both basically high
second round, late first round picks and they traded away their
2026 first round pick, which looks like next year isn't going
to be a super high pick. You know, I look at that versus
what the Knicks did for Mikhail Bridges.
They gave up that the the Knicks sent away Bojan Bogdanovic, not
to be confused, Bogdan Bogdanovic, who we played for
the Pacer. Lots of Bogdanovic's, a couple
other players. But they also traded away a
first round pick in 25, a first round pick in 27, a first round
pick in 29, a first round pick in 31, a pick swap in 28 and
four top protected 2025 first round picks, like 9 first round
picks. That's called going all in.
I mean, that's the thing that I think is so cool about this is
the Pacers have built this on smart moves, smart contracts.
And if they want to air quote go all in, they still can.
They only, there's only one pick.
They don't have a first round pick.
A future first round pick they don't have is 2026.
They have all their other first round picks.
They've given up a couple to get like OB top and second round
stuff. But I think that's also the
pretty amazing part is so many of these teams out there are
just giving away tons of assets to get players, and the Pacers
really haven't done that. Yeah.
I mean, and, and you also have to throw into this and this, I
think we mentioned this before, this is a team that's doing all
of this on the margins the few times they've had high level
draft picks. They didn't do great.
I mean, if you go back and look at at what they've done and
we'll throw in Jairus Walker in this as well, who who at least
was able to contribute a little bit finally in two games of the
Eastern Conference final and then going to Tony's cursed
point got injured immediately. But and.
Looks like he might be able to play in the finals though.
Like I don't know how watching that but it looks like he's only
missing. Two games, but, but you know,
you look back and in in 2023, they trade the 7th pick to the
Wizards and they get Walker back with the 8th and Walker's been
OK but hasn't really contributed that much.
They get Ben Shepard with the 26th pick of that draft and you
know, I think for a 26th pick, he's been a pretty good value
overall. They should almost trade all
picks down into the 20s 'cause they did really well in that
mid. In 22 they picked Benedict
Matheran and I think the jury is still out on whether Benedict
Matheran is reliable. He was clearly a key player in
this series, but they nailed the second round pick with Andrew
Nemhardt that ends up being a really high value pick.
Their first round pick in 2021 was Chris Duarte, who is barely
in the league at this point. Played 17 games for the Bulls
this season. They had one pick in town.
From where they go against the Greg because I think he was like
25. I have 24.
He was old. I have a Chris Duarte jersey
hanging up in my claw. FanDuel.
FanDuel had a promo where you could like make a bet and you
got like $100 free to fanatics get a jersey.
And that was like the Pacers future from In My Eyes was like,
hey, Chris Duarte because he started out gangbusters, man.
We have season tickets. We were supposed to do like an
in game thing with my son. Didn't able to, wasn't able to
happen. My son was sad the ticket Rep
sent us that offseason. 2 items, a signed basketball and a signed
hat. And like a ugly Pacers hat.
Like signed hats. Just you know the 8 year old's
going to ruin it. The hat was signed by
Halliburton, the ball was signed by Duarte.
And I'm like, could we just? Anyway, go ahead.
But no, I mean, and you go back from there, you know, Cassius
Stanley did not hit as a second round pick.
Gogo Batazde did not hit as a first round pick.
I mean you it's the link over OG and an Obi.
Among yes, I mean the the one pick you could kind of point to
and say, well, it was kind of a success was Aaron Holiday.
You know, so you you've had this lack of draft success in the
upper rounds of the draft and you've still managed to cobble
together not just a competitive team, but a team that is built
specifically around what they have with Tyrese Halliburton,
which Tony, as you pointed out, that was a real projection.
Like, can this guy actually become this type of a player?
People liked him a lot. I don't know that anybody would
have predicted that he would have been like this.
And that makes the engine go around all of this.
And it's just, it's, it is a real testament to it was a slow
build. It was a build I was complaining
about as recently as two years ago with Scott was so nice to
point out on the last podcast that we did.
But when it when it's when it clicked and really it was that
Siakam trade that I, you know, it was kind of the final major
piece. It felt like suddenly it's like
this is not only a group you can work with, but it's an
affordable group, which becomes more and more important than an
era where affordability is getting harder and harder to
come by for NBA teams. Also, just sorry, I want to
chime in one thing on drafting stuff.
Just, you know, the 2020 draft was weird because it was the
COVID drafts. There were no workouts.
It was all Zoom stuff. And and you look at how the
draft worked out and say why, you know, Bill Simmons loves
doing redrafts. Like it's a crazy redraft
because a lot of the guys up there are just not supposed to
be there. But what's also Pacers to me is
like, yeah, the Pacers, you got, you know, out of that, out of
that lottery, you have Obi Toppin, Jaylen Smith, who's not
with the Pacers, but was Tyrese Halliburton and Aaron Nesmith.
Like it's the Pacers identified that as a draft where it's like
there was a lot of guys who were drafted kind of incorrectly and
they really cherry picked out of that 2020 draft.
That was the draft that was in like November, right?
Yes, it was. Like right after the bubble and
all that, Yeah. And then like the season started
2 weeks later. Well, sorry Wiseman.
They had Wiseman too. I apologize.
They had the second. They have Wiseman on the team,
or did for a while, too. So five of the lottery picks in
2020 the Pacers have had. And here we are.
Yeah. Well, with with Tyrese,
obviously, like you said though, Galen, he's the engine that that
makes this whole thing go. So being able to get that piece,
like I remember Scott within like the first week, you're
like, dude, you got to come to a game with me.
Like seeing this guy live is just insane.
Like, because it is though, like when you when you're not used to
seeing that and then all of a sudden you see this dude that
just has this fantastic court vision and and whatnot.
It's like it was it just immediately I felt better about
the Pacers future and his numbers.
I think his numbers jumped insanely even within that season
as soon as he became a Pacer where he really, you know, the,
the had the reins to the offense and he wasn't kind of playing
this Jekyll and Hyde with deer and fox.
Yeah, yeah, well, and the thing with Halliburton is he's I I go
back something Galen you've you've brought up a couple times
we've talked Pacers is, you know, the similarities in a way
between this and the mid 90s teams is, you know, Halliburton
and Reggie are different, but they're very similar in that
they they love the kill shot. They love the moment they play
well in big games. Reggie was a very unconventional
superstar in that he was a little bit roller coastery high
and low. Didn't he was going to give you
25 and, you know, 13 every night.
He was a little and you to really build things uniquely
around him. I think Halliburton's better,
but he's he's similar in the in the respect of he's not the
LeBron Anthony Edwards type where you're going to get, you
know, 2814 and 12 every night. You know, Halliburton is a
little bit more up and down. I would also say, you know, he
has these moments of brilliance that he has games where you're
like, man, it's rough. It's like he's also 25 and I get
when you're when you're suddenly, you know, being talked
about as a top ten guy, it's more about consistency and
that's what he's got to work on. But he's also still young.
He's still probably a here or two away from his prime, but
yeah, you see the stuff that he does and it really is one of
those where you can't just look at the box for or the
highlights. You have to watch the whole game
and you look at the way that he's able to infuse the way he
plays basketball with, you know, in this series, you know, there
was a play where Miles Turner had a wide open 3 and just saw
Siakam and just threw it like, no, you're getting the ball
thrown into Siakam. I look at that because there's
always second, third passes. Guys are giving up open shots
for a better shot, which is very unusual in the NBA.
But I also look at the way Pascal Siakam, you know, and
Tony and I talked about a lot last year, It's like it's going
to take time for them to figure out how to play together.
Pascal is playing so much faster than he ever played in Toronto.
But you see it where he, Pascal, has now realized like, oh man,
if I just Sprint and I get out every time, I'm going to get
eight points a game just on like layups and dunks.
Obi Toppin is similar in that respect.
But just seeing how, you know, high level players are changing
their game to play with Halliburton because they know
he's going to get him the ball. He sees almost everything and
he's going to make the right decision.
It is. It's so cool to see a team built
around that and being built around unselfish basketball.
Yeah. That like literally they're,
they're together like, and that's a big piece of it.
Yeah. It's also it's a stylistic
choice though. And I think one of the things
that is interesting and, and I think a small part of why the
NBA establishment didn't know how to deal with the 90s Pacers
and doesn't really know how to deal with these Pacers is that
it's it's really a team where it's not really predictable who
the second best player is going to be on any given night or even
the first best player. But they can still win because
they have this cast of characters that can rise up and
contribute at a really high level and then sink back into
the background. And they even got guys that can
come off the bench that can do that.
You know, the fact that you've had Mathurin come in and
contributed a high level statistically.
You know, the fact that you'll you'll get a great individual
game out of TJ McConnell one night.
I mean, you'll get those things individually.
But there's almost always dedicated stars on either end of
the floor that we're used to following along with in the NBA.
And I think for a lot of analysts, it, it almost takes a
rewiring of your brain in terms of how you think about the NBA.
But it's a stylistic change that the league now to some degree
allows because of how standardized the three-point
line and the corner threes have been.
And also the idea that you can push pace, that you can play at
that level if you have the right personnel set.
And that can neutralize not having, you know, a, a dominant
scorer or a dominant, you know, assist person in every single
game. I I think this, this formula can
easily not work. And and I think that's where
there's a lot of skepticism and you can make an argument to some
degree that like the Cavs were the supercharged version of
this. And yes, they had some injuries
in that semi final round, but they broke down because they
almost got they they reverted to Donovan Mitchell will win the
game for us in in most of those games.
And it didn't work. And it and when he got his ankle
tweaked or whatever it was in game five, it was like, well,
that's that's kind of it for them because if they can't rely
on him to carry the load, much like with Brunson or with Towns
with the Knicks, it was over. And the Pacers are almost never
out of these games because they aren't so reliant on anyone
piece and because it can be any one of the five people that are
in the starting lineup. And we kind of saw every single
one of them have their moments in the first 3 rounds of the
playoffs, which is pretty cool, but just very unorthodox for
this particular league. But I also think this this goes
into just another highlight of how good of a coach Rick
Carlisle is because you look back if he won a title with the
Mavs, that Mavs team played completely differently than this
Pacers team did. He was a coach of the Pistons,
that team. Play differently, you know,
those those O3 to O7 Pacers play differently than these teams do.
Whereas, you know, picking on a guy like Tibbs that those team,
A Tibbs team plays a Tibbs way like you are going to play his
style of basketball. Or it does feel more like
Carlisle kind of, you know, looks all right, I'm going to
take a step back. What do I have?
I'm going to build a team around what I have versus we're going
to build a team around the way that I coach.
And to me, that's a a really cool.
I love coaches like that where it's like, you know, Belichick's
was kind of like that with the Pats.
Like I'm going to build my team based on the ingredients I have.
Not trying to do that. And I I think again, it just
shows the the vast difference in styles that Carlisle has played
and won at at a high level. And it shows too, to me, like
Carlisle, not only will he like, adapt to the team he's got, he's
adapted to the modern NBA. Like he's been around.
He's seen the ebbs and flows and how the game has changed and
he's changing alongside it and kind of on that cutting edge.
Whereas you've got, you know, guys, Doc Rivers, for instance,
like still coaches the same way that he coached the O 7 Celtics.
And like, that isn't gonna fly. And like, honestly, he was out
of the league for a bit. And I know we're gay.
I know why, Galens laughing. Really looking.
We've had no experiences with this whatsoever, Tony.
But yeah, so thankfully, Indiana Pacers have Rick Carlisle at the
helm and he's he's adapting well, the other.
Thing that he does that you you see a lot of other teams do like
with the Knicks campaign wasn't playing well.
It's like, all right, he's in the doghouse like campaigns done
and that was just the end of his series.
You see it with the way Rivers coaches the the Bucks guys just
get you know, like Lopez, you're done with the Pacers just kind
of this feeling of like, all right, man, Thomas Bryant,
you've had two bad games like just take a breath.
We are going to need you and they needed him and he showed
up. You know, Andrew Nemhart was not
playing great the first couple of games, having a really hard
time. You know how to defend Brunson.
It's like game six, We're going to put you on him and you know,
we're going to give you some ideas and like, but we need you
to kick some ass. And you did.
And that's the other thing. Just like the Pacers are never
out of it. It does feel like no one's ever
buried on the bench, like math around a couple bad games, Like
all right, like brush it off, come on back and we're going to
need you. And I think that's also unique
is you just don't see a lot of teams where, you know, once guys
are in coaches dog houses, they're just kind of there and
it's really hard for them to get back out.
We're fields with Carlisle. They they've built this team
where it's like, alright, man, it's not your night.
No worries, But like tomorrow night is going to be your night.
And but you also feel that the coaching staff is trying to put
like with them hard, especially like we're going to put you in a
position where you're going to succeed.
And here it is Game 6. Go defend the hell out of
Brunson and you know you're going to do such a good job.
It's basically like he we got the head butt again that Starks
gave to Reggie Miller. They just didn't call it this
time. Absolutely, yeah.
I mean it's. Yeah, I mean with.
All these flowers we now have to play the Thunder, who are a
really, you know, a really good team.
You know, the two things I'll say then I'll turn it over to to
you guys to give me your thoughts is, you know, from a
pro Pacer's point of view, the Thunder are really good.
There's no question about that. Everyone's talking about their
record. I will point out that, you know,
the Pacers started, I think 10 and 15.
That was because they didn't have Nesmith or Nemhart, which
are huge pieces of this team. Once they had those guys back,
think the Pacers are the exact same record or one game worse
than the Thunder. So, you know, since Christmas,
it's not like the Thunder are much better just over the full
season. It is a true stat.
But like, since those guys have come back, the Pacers have been
playing at the same pace the Thunder have have, you know, not
gone to A7 game series this post season.
I would also say that, you know, Carlisle has a history of
postponing or holding back dynasties from starting.
You know, when he was with the mat, the Mavs, they went into
that series as a massive underdog because it was the
Heat, LeBron, and he broke the Heat.
I mean, he had JJ Berea guarding LeBron, JJ Berea's 511 guarding
LeBron in the post. And Lebron's head was just
broken in that series. He was able to do that.
And you do wonder if, like, is this a moment where you can
catch the Thunder before they start a run?
Is it possible? That's how I look at this
series. But I will say the Thunder look
good. They look scary.
And it's it's going to be an interesting strength on
strength. The Pacers don't turn the ball
over. The Thunder get teams turn the
ball over. You know, how's that going to
go? But I'll start with you, Tony.
What, what are your thoughts going into this series against
the Thunder? I mean, it's it's just another
series that I mean, the Pacers. Seriously, though, the Pacers
have been underdogs in every single series they've gone into.
I think it was seven straight games between the Cavs and the
Knicks. They were underdogs, Vegas, you
know? One of my pets been making me
and some friends some money this series.
Oh man, it's, it's been glorious.
It's it's been fantastic. But, and I'll probably do
similarly with the Thunder games because you know, I, I think
when you look at it on paper, obviously the Thunder are the
favorite. You know, like not even going by
Vegas lines, like they've got the MVP of the league.
They've got a historically great defense, but I think pace the
Pacers have things that can come back.
All of that as well. You know, I, I think the Pacers
are are every single player in their starting lineup except for
Tyrese is shooting over 40% from three in the playoffs.
And then, you know, Tyrese is obviously the engine that makes
him go. He has games where he can go 6
for 8/6 for 9 from three. He also has the ones where he
might go over 9 at No, actually, if he's not, if he doesn't make
like his first three, he's not shooting again.
What am I talking about? But you know, on paper, the
Thunder look better, but I, I have a hard time counting out
the Pacers just based on this playoff run.
Seems magical. I thought Rick Carlisle put it
really well when he was kind of congratulating the Knicks on a
great season. He's like, look, these dudes
just ran into a team on a magical run right now.
And like that's, that's true. Like they, they, but it's not
the, the run, though. I think most people are probably
thinking he's talking about from like April through now in the
playoffs. It's from January, like from
January through now. They've been one of the best two
or three teams in the league in terms of record, in terms of
pace, in terms of adjusted margin, like all of those
things. So to me, I, I think the Thunder
are certainly the best team the Pacers have played.
They have they're playing against the best player they've
played against, but I don't think that they are just leaps
and bounds better than the Cavs team that the Pacers absolutely
dismantled and kind of made look silly and like had them
questioning is like this how we want to build this team.
Yeah, I'll jump in on this. I mean, if you look at the stats
and the record since the All Star break, the Thunder are 24
and four and the Pacers are 20 and 9.
You know, so that's, that's A5 game difference essentially, or
4 1/2 game difference. If you look at the advanced
statistics in the playoffs, which I think like we've got,
we've played 16 games, both teams have played 16 games.
That is roughly 20% of an 82 game schedule.
So it's a pretty representative sample size of what you're
getting now. And and that to, to some degree,
I think that's where a lot of the national analysis has fallen
down in that they're comparing full season stats and full
season records between these two teams.
And Scott, as you pointed out, Pacers really haven't been whole
since the I mean, they got whole around New Year's and it's been
a different mode since then. But, but even looking just
within the playoffs, so up to this point, the Thunder are
outscoring their opponents by 10.8 points per game in the
playoffs, the Pacers by 4.1. The offensive like the net
efficiency difference. So basically taking offensive
efficiency and subtracting defensive efficiency.
The Thunder are 10.8 which is the exact same as their points
difference. The Pacers are at 4.2 in
efficiency. Pace wise, the Thunder are
actually played just a little bit faster than the Pacers.
But that advantage for the Thunder becomes less when you're
used to playing a team that plays at that pace.
Whereas almost everybody else that they played in the Western
Conference wasn't playing that fast.
Denver certainly wasn't. Minnesota was not used to
playing at that pace either. And the Pacers had the advantage
of playing a Cavs team that played almost as fast as they do
and they got the better of them than that.
So you know, when I look at this, as Tony pointed out, yes,
the the Thunder are going to be the favorites.
They are kind of a ridiculous betting line favorite right now
in terms of I think they're -750 or -700 in the series.
Pretty much every prediction I've seen has been Thundering 4
or thundering 5. That largely is predicated on
the idea that the Thunder's defense is going to completely
jam up with the Pacers. Want to do that may be the case,
but all you've got is A2 game sample size in the regular
season, and I don't know if that's necessarily something
that you can point to it to some degree it's almost an advantage
to the Pacers because the Thunder are going to have it in
their heads that, hey, we handled these guys a couple of
times already, you know, we can jam up what they're doing.
I think the whole team right now is playing with a lot more
belief in what they can do because they've seen evidence of
it over the course of these three series.
And they've beaten 3 really good teams.
And I believe like the Pacers have beaten teams with an
aggregate better record overall than the Thunder have.
Like, I mean, the, the, the one over the Cavs is pretty
impressive. And as Tony points out, like,
it's not like the Cavs were. I mean, the Cavs were the number
one seed. Like that was a team that
everybody was a little bit concerned to, to see how that
was going to happen in the playoffs.
But they were as young as the Thunder and if you look at who
the Thunder have played so far, they've played three relatively
flawed teams to get here. I mean I have a hard time giving
them full credit against the Nuggets team that fired their
coach what, 2 weeks before the play offs started and clearly
had chemistry issues and clearly wasn't sure how to proceed and
that team took them to 7. You know the.
Only thing with the Cavs, like they I think they won 64 games
this year and because like the the narrative has gotten odd
with that. I mean, I know like, you know,
Garland was hurt for one game, but you know, they were healthy
most of those games because we beat them in five.
It's kind of like, well, they sucked.
It's like, but no, they're the one seal.
Like that is more credit to us than the other way around.
It's like it's just kind of like, well, the Pacers had an
easy Rd. because they played a bad Cav.
Like they are they bad because we beat them in five?
Like doesn't that, don't we get any credit for that?
It's not a it's basically what happened to you football.
You know, it's exact same narrative.
Well, you so you beat Michigan. They must suck and well, hey,
they beat they beat Ohio State and Alabama.
Well, it doesn't matter. I so I look Tommy.
Scoring kind of jumping on the scoring piece, you know, for,
for you know what I, I look at, it is like I, it is weird to say
because the Thunder have won some playoff games, like one
40s, one 30s are putting up big scoring numbers.
But when you look in the playoffs, the Pacers right now
have six players averaging over 10 points a game.
Matheran at 10, Nemhart at 12, Niece Smith at 14, Turner at
1415, Halliburton 18, Siakam at 21.
You go to the Thunder, they only got 3 guys averaging over 10
points. You know, SGA is at 29.8, so
he'll get his 30, Jay Williams at 20, Chet Holger at 16.
Then it drops. You're like hard seems 9,
Caruso's 8, Dort is 7. You know, this, this has a lot
of hallmarks of some of the Knicks with Brunson and
definitely the Cavs with Mitchell where it's like OK.
And even the Bucks with Giannis, like, great, we'll let you go
nuts, you know, and I saw this, I saw this with the Cavs and the
Bucks. And we'll let Giannis and
Mitchell go nuts. And then some of those ancillary
guys, you just instinctively don't play as hard when it's
like every possession is Giannis going at it Like you don't
rebound as hard, you don't play as hard.
So I do wonder, like, where is the scoring going to come from
from the Thunder outside of those top two guys?
Are you going to be able to score at that clip to keep up
with the pace of the Pacers? Yeah, and to me, good offense
beats good defense and and I know that it's like defense wins
championships is kind of the mantra and all that.
You know, I think if the Pacers are clicking on all cylinders, I
think that their their offense will be tough to stop regardless
of I know that the the Thunder have you know, Door and Williams
and guys that were on the all defensive team.
That's the all. Defensive team is primarily
predicated on one-on-one matchups.
The Pacers aren't really trying to take you one-on-one unless
it's Pascal Siakam with a smaller guy on them.
Their offense is predicated on movement, spacing and things
like that. And then they have the best, in
my opinion, distributor as their point guard.
So to me, I I have a little concern about them putting a guy
with a lot of length on Halliburton and trying to lock
him up. But they have other guys that
can create and their offense isn't predicated on one-on-one
stuff, which is where I think the Thunder kind of thrived
defensively. So I know I'm looking at this
certainly with with through a Pacers lens, but I mean that
that to me I think kind of works in their favor.
Yeah, I mean, I look, the Pacers have to shoot well from three in
this series. You know, the The Ringer did a
really nice breakdown of, you know, the the advantages for the
Pacers are going to be corner threes, which Oklahoma City
generally does not try to defend particularly well.
The, the, the Pacers have struggled or they struggled in
the two regular season games against the Thunder in terms of
they were, you know, the, the Thunder had the ability to
switch basically everything, but they didn't have Chet Holmgren
in either of those games. And Chet Holmgren can't quite
switch as effectively with everybody as the line UPS that
they were using in those first two games.
So what does that look like? Because they are going to be
playing him in this series. He's been, what, their third
leading scorer in the playoffs so far.
The Pacers defensively are they're, you know, they're they
are used to giving up baskets when they can easily get out in
transition and get baskets in return to essentially negate
whatever the other team did. The Thunder are probably the
best in the league at getting back and preventing those things
from occurring. So they're going to have to
figure out some other avenues on that.
Ultimately, if the Pacers allow their offense to get gunked up
the way that it got gunked up in games, 3:00 and 5:00, they're
gonna have a real hard time throughout the course of this
series. But if they're scoring
consistently and if they've literally if they can get the
ball movement to the point where they've got three or four people
that can reliably hit from outside and use that to open up
opportunities in the post, I do think that they've got a really
good shot at at keeping the series close.
But it's going to require obviously them to play defense
as well. And I guess the one thing that I
don't know and the thing that sometimes gets lost in all the
conversation about how good the Thunder are defensively is this
was a team that averaged over, you know, since the All Star
break, 125 points per game, which was tops in the league by
a pretty significant margin, you know, but was able to pair it
with good defense to match. And so the Pacers have got to
have probably their best defensive effort of this entire
play offs or the Thunder are going to have to like self
destruct to some degree, which is essentially what happened to
the Cavs where they, as you were mentioning Scott, got too
focused on the ball dominance and put themselves in a position
where nobody else could contribute effectively.
I don't know. And, and this is the big
unknown, like, as much as the Pacers are clearly the underdogs
statistically, do the Thunder at some point look up and say, holy
shit, we're in the NBA Finals. Does that end up hurting them?
I mean, the Pacers might do the same thing and the Pacers might
get them in. So, So I think it's something
that both teams have to wrestle with.
The one difference is the Pacers got to the Eastern Conference
finals last year. They get stopped there.
They've had, you know, now 2 full playoff series in a row
with the same unit where they're essentially relying on the same
guys to do the same sorts of things.
Does that give them a mental advantage in this?
Because oftentimes we will see players suddenly hit a wall when
you get to this point, not just because of the minutes that
they've played, but also because of the moment that they're
playing in. I I love this because, you know,
we're going to look back in three weeks and we can kind of
tell the narrative either way. Because on one hand, if the
Thunder win, they blitz the Pacers, it's going to be like,
yeah, man, that was the best team.
Like that's a really good team. They might be, you know,
starting a dynasty like May and it's going to suck.
It's like, damn it, the Pacers make the finals twice.
Like we, we immediately play the the Lakers in the middle of the
Kobe Shaq, you know, starting of that.
And then we play the Thunder starting here.
But the other thing that I could see and, you know, if this
starts to happen is, you know, coaching and experience matters.
And that's always brought up too.
You know, you have Rick Carlisle has all this experience and he's
been in like, it's wild how much this mirrors the Mavs run that
he had in 2011, even to the point that I was concerned about
the nine days off between the Cavs and the Knicks series.
They had nine days off between their Western Conference
semifinal W like exactly the same.
So Carlisle's been in almost these exact same spots.
That has to matter. And then, you know, Siakam has
won a title, not just as a, you know, as a key part of that
Raptors team. He's been there.
He talked about it a little bit in the post game of, you know,
how he's using that experience. None of the Thunder guys have
been here. And and I do think this is kind
of a dumb thing. It's like you got to win some
games, but I if the Pacers get blitzed and blitzed in game one
and two, it's like, damn it, that's going to suck.
I look at this like they they've got to keep it close.
You be there like, let that experience matter.
Because I do think you'll get to some points for Carlisle if he
can make those adjustments. If Siakam can use that
experience, I think you could be at a point where, you know, the
Pacers can steal one in the first two in Oklahoma City.
They come back home, they win. It's like suddenly the Thunder
can be like, holy shit, we're down to 1.
Like and then we're trying to make weird adjustments.
They're doing their version of Shamit or something and maybe
Carlisle can outmaneuver him. But you you can't do that if you
get blitzed in the first two games.
No, I mean you, you mentioned the coaching, you know
difference here. I mean Daniel is is or Daniel
Alter, however you pronounce his last name, is a very good coach.
But this is his it's only his third playoff series as a head
coach. They lost in the first round in
his first season, and then last year they lose in the conference
semifinals despite having won 57 games to the Mavs.
Now, that was a different type of team they were playing.
That was a team that had Luka Doncic and had Kyrie Irving.
You know, that was a team that you you could understand how
they lost that they get that experience.
I'm curious, though, how the management of this team
continues. They won 11 more games in the
regular season. If they win the four games in
this like they're they're up there amongst literally the all
time great teams, are they actually that good?
That's what I'm very curious about.
And it may turn out that they are, but I think you you bring
up a great point in that coaching experience does matter
in these particular cases, especially when you are a team
that has a large roster of players that you can call on a
night by night basis. And we saw that in the next
series. Like really the the levers that
Carlisle was pulling made a big difference in terms of the way
the Pacers were able to handle the different challenges in that
series. I think it's foolish to just
assume based upon how the regular seasons for both teams
ended up, that you would automatically just seed all of
the advantages to the Thunder when you've got all of these
other items in the mix that you need to consider.
Well, just one more quick thing that I want to get to Tony again
is just you know, you look at who the Thunder lost to last
year, the Maz with Luca who they really struggled with this year
going 7 is the Nuggets with Jokic.
You know, the, the similarities between Jokic and Doncic are
they are both guys who see the floor and have great passing.
We have Halliburton and like, and it's, I'm not saying that
he's up there in that level, like versus A-Team, like, you
know, the, the Cavs where you have a ball dominant guy like I,
I do look at this. It's like that is what the
Thunder seem to struggle with is a player who can get to the
middle and then break down a defense with passing and vision.
And that's what Halliburton does.
Yeah. And I I think the Pacers have
found something defensively as well to Yeah, I mean, if you
look at ball dominance, I mean, they've gone against Giannis,
Donovan Mitchell and Jaylen Bronson in three successive
series. Shay's going to dominate the
ball in similar fashion where the Pacers have have essentially
they're they're not going to see anything that they're not used
to. I think I think they're going to
have ways to guard that corral him when you know, whether you
double him or whatever the case may be, or, or maybe you let him
get his like they kind of did Giannis and make sure everybody
else is shut down on the perimeter.
So to me, I think the Pacers have an advantage because I
think the Thunder haven't played in offense like the Pacers have
played, where I do think the Pacers have played an offense
like the Thunder have in terms of ball dominance and and trying
to corral a guy like, you know, similar to like a Luka Doncic or
whatever the case may be. So I am intrigued by by that
standpoint of it too. Again, looking through a Pacers
lens and some advantages I think they might have.
That one is interesting to me. Let's play the Galen's been a
part of this, thankfully in a very positive way in football,
Tony, you get to join us for this a little Scott fever dream
to wrap things up. If the Pacers win, they win four
games, they win the series. I I've been Galen and I've been
kind of kicking this around like what's what's at stake?
I mean, obviously a championship is there.
I look at it as as like, are we talking about Halliburton is the
best pacer ever over Miller? You know, I, I look at like
Miles Turner suddenly becomes a guy who like, well, that's a guy
whose number gets retired. You know, does the Simons just
sell the team like, hey, we're, we're going to cash in?
You're off to Seattle. I'm I'm curious, you know,
obviously outside of like a title, it does feel like there's
a lot at stake here, which is so dumb to say because you're in
the Finals, but just fever dream for a second the Pacers win.
What are some answers, awesome benefits of that outside of
obviously winning that title? Galen, I'll start with you.
I mean, look, if you there, there's a couple of things I
think worth noting right now about where the Pacers are.
Like they during the Reggie Miller era, they became the most
popular team in the state of Indiana.
I think you can make the argument because I mean, IU, you
know, IU basketball had receded. Purdue was at their apex and
even at their apex they weren't that popular.
The Colts were still kind of mired in that, you know, nine
win, you know, 10 win, 8 win phase.
Playoffs, right? Yeah.
That was what, 2001, I think then, then, then, you know, you
think about what happened in that following decade.
The Malice in the Palace happens, the whole Jamal Tinsley
era happens, and then the Colts get amazingly good.
Manny happens, yeah. Yeah, right.
And and so the Pacers continue to recede and they have this
long stretch of yeah, I mean they they do come back a little
bit in the early twenty 10s with the Paul George Roy Hibbert
thing. But even that ends in a really
awkward way where I people have fond memories of those teams.
But I think that that group is almost looked upon is like,
well, how much should we have gotten excited about that in
retrospect? For the Pacers now to be playing
this style, to have this type of a team, to have a team that
seems to be connecting at a level that I haven't seen in 25
years with the fans, you know, just getting to the Finals,
frankly, this is as high as this franchise has ever gotten in the
NBA era. I and I know they won three ABA
titles. We need to really stop talking
about those. No, no disrespect to Slick
Leonard and no disrespect to Rodger Brown and and Mel
Daniels. It it's just like none of the
people on this podcast were even alive when those people were
playing, let alone the younger fans who desperately need
something to connect with. So I think they've already
gotten a lot of the ancillary benefits of not just this year,
but last year's run. And the fact that they look set
up to be able to sustain this for a couple years is great.
But to win a title against such a dominant team in Oklahoma City
would be not just obviously the high watermark for the entire
history of the Pacers franchise. I think you could make an
argument that it would be the most unexpected and underdog
story, so to speak, in the NBA since what, the Pistons beating
the Lakers in 2004. You know, it's you know, it's
one of those like off the wall, like, you know, the last time a
four seed won the title. I believe in in the NBA.
And the last time a team that I think was this big of A and.
The. Last time a team that was this
much of an underdog betting wise at the beginning of the playoffs
won the title was the 95 Rockets, who have a huge
asterisk next to them since they were the defending champs and
had Akima Lajwan. You know, I mean like that.
That really doesn't count as, as far as what you're talking about
here. It would be 1 of it's kind of
like when you look back at NBA history and you're like, how the
hell did the Bullets win a a title in 78?
Or how did the Trail Blazers in 77 or 79?
Like that, that, that three-year stretch was such a weird time in
NBA history. And a lot of it was expansion
and, or, you know, adding the ABA teams.
I mean, there were a lot of reasons for it, but it was
almost the IT was a cycle change in the NBA.
And I think the Pacers have an opportunity to do something
really remarkable. It'd be a, you know, the rarity
of a small market team without a dominant star.
Like any of those things are unusual to combine them all and
to be able to win and to do so with this type of a playoff run.
This is the kind of thing you bank off a franchise for the for
the next 10 years. And so if they if they lose in
the in the finals, it really no one's expecting them to win
outside of Pacers fans, literally nobody.
If you if you guys find someone that's picking the Pacers to win
in this series, please let us know.
I have yet to see a single person who's even picked the
Thunder in Six, but I think. Stephen A Smith is still picking
the Knicks, by the way. Right.
But I think that all of those things combined, you know, I, I,
I think we have to leave the player stuff aside.
It's the one weird aspect of having such a young team is that
we don't know how Halliburton's career is going to go.
You know, he's not, he's not in the, you know, the, if you look
at win shares, like there's nobody from this team except for
Miles Turner, that's in the top 12 of win shares in Pacers
history. You know, So I, I think all of
that stuff personnel wise has to be delayed.
But from a franchise perspective, it's amazing.
The Pacers have puts themselves in a position where they almost
have nothing to lose in this Finals 'cause even if they don't
win it, they're really well set up to, to be able to get back
again. And I think that that's a really
special place for this franchise to be and not anything I would
have predicted four or five years ago.
Yeah, for me, I think about like Indiana sports lore and and
where it would stack up and because of the improbability of
this run, like the Colts in O 6, I think you expected them to to
win a championship at at some point while he was great.
You know, you had one of the best players in the game.
You were on the precipice of it several years running Indiana
basketball in that window, especially from 76 to to 87.
You expected them to win. So I, I then, you know, Purdue,
well, they'd never won one so little jab, you know, So you
look at, and then Notre Dame football, not everybody's a fan
of Notre Dame football. So I look at like the grand
scheme, like you've got some Cincinnati Bengals fans in
Indiana. You've got, you know, so from
the grand scheme of like the connectedness of the state and
the improbability of this run, like I don't know if there's
more people behind this then there there there has been, I
guess is kind of the way I'm thinking about it.
Obviously the Colts just because the NFL is a bigger brand or
whatever, But I'm just thinking about like me as a sports fan,
the improbability I think of like, you know, the Butler runs
were were improbable. I used 2002 run was similar to
this. You know, my estimation, like
pretty good team, but didn't really expect him to to make
that run. So I'm just kind of thinking
about it in that regard of like, where was this?
Where would this stack up for me?
Like, let's say the Pacers win the championship.
I've thought about that. Like how does that stack up to
all of the other kind of fun fan experiences that I've had of my
favorite teams? And I don't really know yet if
it would top the Cubs winning for me.
That was a huge, huge thing for me that I didn't really ever
expect to happen just because of that.
But man, I'll, I'll be damned if it's not going to be close.
It's it's pretty incredible this run.
The thing with the, the and you know, we have the, the, the
beauty of hindsight here with the Reggie Miller era, you know,
all of those runs were awesome. Like the eight points in nine
seconds, Like they've almost become these own little capsules
of like that was cool. But it's not really amounting to
anything because a lot of those series we lost, we went on to
lose the next round. Or I mean, there were, you know,
there were no titles. It it any of those mid 90s.
I mean, like the finals team was kind of near the end of Reggie's
era. It was more a Jermaine O'Neal
team. Like all of those Reggie heroics
were in series and seasons that didn't amount to the going to
the finals. And and so that I look at that
as something interesting here that, you know, this could
really break that paradigm. And it's suddenly it's like
those Halliburton moments of, you know, the comebacks and the
threes and the choke sign. It's like that all LED up to a
title is just something so different and unique.
And you know, Galen, you're you're kind of blowing my mind
in a good way, like just how big this could be for the state.
But I, I think you're right. It, it could really reset a lot
of things because the Colts are kind of floundering.
And if the Pacers win a title, you look at this and it's like,
well, shit, they could win too. I mean, you look at houses and
stuff and, and I'll just say, you know, you, you, you talked.
About not one. Yeah, not 2.
You know, the, the thing with the Paul George era, you're
right. Because it, you know, on one
hand, Hibbert just like stopped being a functional basketball
player like that. It was just like, oh, we don't
play Hibbert anymore. But with Paul George, you always
know, like the guys from LA probably wants to go back there.
But like you have something unique here is you have a player
in Halliburton who's from Wisconsin.
Like he went to Iowa State. Like this is like he, I, I mean,
who knows. And he'll probably end up going
to Miami at some point, like 3 years because everyone does.
You stop it, you stop it. The feeling that it's like this
team wants to be here and they all.
I don't want to be here. And anyway, sorry, go ahead.
No, no, I, I just, I don't think the intrinsic likability of the
that 12 to 14 run with the Pacers was not entirely there.
It was still a team that people liked in the moment.
But I mean, who's got among Pacers fans, you could make a
legitimate argument. The guy with the highest Q
rating on those teams was Danny Granger still like I mean, does
anybody think fondly of Paul George?
Does anybody think fondly of Roy Hibbert?
Does anybody think I mean it's like the high curating is Lance
Stephenson like that's the guy from that era.
But even that it's maybe you're right, but he but in terms of
like the. Which that kind of speaks for
itself, right? And.
I'm trying to make it's like that's that's the problem.
If Lance is your most beloved and you're blowing in Lebrons
ear like that's the high watermark of that.
The the the the the roar he got in game 4 when they introduced
him courtside was second only to Reggie Miller.
But and, but again, right, but I'm talking about the former
Pacers. But that team, for a variety of
reasons, never fully connected, I would argue with the fan base
in a lasting way like the 90s teams did.
And, and this team has all of those ingredients 'cause there's
really not an unlikable guy on the entire roster.
You know, the and Halliburton, while he's unlikable to other
fan bases for a variety of reasons, that's endeared him in
a way that few players have been endeared to the Indiana Pacers
fan base over the course of time.
And I do think that that matters.
And when you think about like what makes a team, what makes a
group of players stick with a fan base and become part of the
culture and part of the lore, I think what we're seeing here is
a possibility of not just a star being born, but kind of like a
franchise legend being born. The fact that this is all
happening within a few years of of him getting on the roster and
and this roster being assembled, you know, there's still stuff to
do, but it to demonstrate you can win like this.
And even just with A50 win team, which is, you know, that's there
have been several 50 win teams in Pacers history.
There have only been two that have made it to the finals.
And that's that is I think really fascinating to think
about in terms of like a full healthy season with this team
maybe puts them in a completely different perspective in the
playoffs and they've got the road ahead of them.
But it kind of starts here. And whether that is they lose to
a a Thunder team that's just more efficient than they are or
whether they upset a Thunder team that everybody is already
assuming going to win the final. Yeah.
Three. You know that there's a lot to
like about all of that. And I'm just really curious to
see how it unfolds. I don't think there's a good
there's no way of knowing. You know, I was talking to
somebody the other day and it's like, I've been, you know, I'm
I'm, I was born in in the late 70s as as you were, Scott.
And in my entire lifetime, the number of Indianapolis
professional championship appearances just now got to
four. We've had two Colt Super Bowls
and now we've had a second Pacers Finals appearance.
These things are rare. They do stick around, you know,
and unlike the Colts in O nine, who I think people to some
degree, that's that's one we've almost kind of lesser lessened
out in our minds because they were expected to win.
The O61 is probably always going to be the most beloved of those
because of how relatively unexpected it was.
And that's the one like they had Peyton Manning obviously on that
roster, but that was not a team going into the playoffs that
most people gave a shot to win the Super Bowl.
And they had to upset the, you know, the the Patriots to get
there. There was a lot that went on.
They'd upset the Ravens on the road in that sequence.
There's there's a little bit of connective tissue there 'cause
that team had to do it despite not being a perfect team,
despite being a team that had a relatively flawed defense for
most of the season. And keep in mind, like until Bob
Sandler came back and they signed Booger McFarland, that
team was not whole and they got whole in that second-half of the
year. If you're looking for an analog
and something that could add some more historical gravitas,
that's where I would connect it to.
I also think as a kid of the 70s and 80s, you know, growing up,
Indiana was the basketball state.
It was just all about basketball and not a bad way, but just
because of the, the things you mentioned with the Pacers, IU
basketball and and with Peyton Manning, it became more of a
football state. And I would tell people like
growing up, the Colts were just like 4th on the list.
It's the way it was. Not that one's better or worse,
but it would be kind of cool to see, you know, if the Pacers win
the title and then you have Caitlin Clark in the exact same
arena with a ton of interest on the Fever.
You know, I I could see a world where they they recenter where,
you know, where the sports landscape is.
And oddly, it would be IU football kind of holding the
banner for for football in the state of Indiana, which is like
what? That was my point.
What are we living in? IU Football Playoff and Pacers
NBA Finals in the same year is yeah, absolutely insane.
We're back. We're back, baby.
We're. Back.
No, no better. Place to end on that Tony, as
always man, thank you so much for joining Galen.
Always fun talking to you and we're ending with that.
We are back play the music and and the Bison's back like it's
all back. It's all happening.
We are living in a simulation. So let's finish the simulation
with A7 game win a six game win over the Thunder.
Let's win it at home and then have A and have a parade.
Pacers and six Pacers. And six.
All right. Thank you guys for joining us.
We appreciate you as always. Until next time, this is Scott
for Crimson cast signing off.