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.