Comparing NBA Players Past and Present (With Regards to Rick Carlisle)

[HurricaneDij39]

A couple months back, @msgkings322 was being his bitter self in attempt to convince everyone that past players aren’t as badass as many make them to be.

The point of this thread is to provide a follow up and an unbiased opinion that players of today do indeed have their share of advantages in comparison to those of yesteryear.

Without much necessary debate, this current Pacers team new head coach Rick Carlisle is inheriting is already considerably less maintenance than the one he inherited nearly 20 years ago…

Just about everyone knows about goofy-ass Ron Artest, but Carlisle also inherited the glass man, goofy-ass Jermaine O’Neal, the brief MVP candidate (may not have ever been worthy of such consideration) whom you could count on to miss a big chunk of games every year. And there was one other guy, the one guy I just cringed whenever I watched him in a Pacers uniform and the ultimate do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do type personality - Goofy-ass Stephen Jackson.

The current Pacers - Malcolm Brogdon, T.J. Warren, and Caris LeVert - While not as physical and not quite as talented (though still very talented in their own right) are unquestionably more coachable and it’s not close.

Since most of you are obsessed with 2003 (the year LeBron was drafted straight out of high school), let me provide you with a history lesson - The Pacers in 2003 were a team not many thought high of when Carlisle was first hired and were coming off three consecutive first round exits under Isaiah Thomas. But in Carlisle’s first year, they proceeded to win 61 games - A franchise record.

Hopefully we are able to extent LeVert in the near future, but you just never know…

As I wrote in Shaqdaddy’s predictions thread, I am picking this team to win its first playoff series in eight years this year, and we will definitely finish with a better record than the AARP Miami Heat.

And if there’s one more thing I might add - Not only are the Pacers a more-mature team, but Carlisle is also a more-mature coach whom I have confidence will be able to adapt with the times moreso than he would have during his first Pacers tenure.

 

[tlance]

I find it rather hilarious that you would trash the top players from the Malice at the Palace squad while also insisting that the Pacers were robbed of a title that year.

The Pacers would not have won.

And if you are being honest with yourself you know this.

Jackson and Artest were loose cannons and there were already hints of chemistry challenges before the Malice. That is not the group you bet on to beat seasoned pros like the Spurs who also happened to be more talented.

 

[trojanfan12]

an unbiased opinion

 

[SJ76]

Stockton and Bird could still kick ass today. Not sure about the Pacers.

 

[logic]

A couple months back, @msgkings322 was being his bitter self in attempt to convince everyone that past players aren’t as badass as many make them to be.

The point of this thread is to provide a follow up and an unbiased opinion that players of today do indeed have their share of advantages in comparison to those of yesteryear.

Without much necessary debate, this current Pacers team new head coach Rick Carlisle is inheriting is already considerably less maintenance than the one he inherited nearly 20 years ago…

Just about everyone knows about goofy-ass Ron Artest, but Carlisle also inherited the glass man, goofy-ass Jermaine O’Neal, the brief MVP candidate (may not have ever been worthy of such consideration) whom you could count on to miss a big chunk of games every year. And there was one other guy, the one guy I just cringed whenever I watched him in a Pacers uniform and the ultimate do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do type personality - Goofy-ass Stephen Jackson.

The current Pacers - Malcolm Brogdon, T.J. Warren, and Caris LeVert - While not as physical and not quite as talented (though still very talented in their own right) are unquestionably more coachable and it’s not close.

Since most of you are obsessed with 2003 (the year LeBron was drafted straight out of high school), let me provide you with a history lesson - The Pacers in 2003 were a team not many thought high of when Carlisle was first hired and were coming off three consecutive first round exits under Isaiah Thomas. But in Carlisle’s first year, they proceeded to win 61 games - A franchise record.

Hopefully we are able to extent LeVert in the near future, but you just never know…

As I wrote in Shaqdaddy’s predictions thread, I am picking this team to win its first playoff series in eight years this year, and we will definitely finish with a better record than the AARP Miami Heat.

And if there’s one more thing I might add - Not only are the Pacers a more-mature team, but Carlisle is also a more-mature coach whom I have confidence will be able to adapt with the times moreso than he would have during his first Pacers tenure.

It wasn't that people didn't think much of the Pacers in 2003, it was that they had a bunch of talent that was being squandered under Thomas. Carlisle already showed he was a good coach getting the Pistons where they were So the change of coach refocused the talent and the y had a great regular season. But he still couldn't get them to the promised land and the team descended the rest of his tenure. You are right that it appears there ate fewer head cases on the current roster, but also right that the talent ceiling is not as high. Barring injuries from true contenders on the East I think this team is still a mid to low seed and a first round out.

 

[Shanemansj13]

As I wrote in Shaqdaddy’s predictions thread, I am picking this team to win its first playoff series in eight years this year, and we will definitely finish with a better record than the AARP Miami Heat.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

I find it rather hilarious that you would trash the top players from the Malice at the Palace squad while also insisting that the Pacers were robbed of a title that year.

The Pacers would not have won.

And if you are being honest with yourself you know this.

Jackson and Artest were loose cannons and there were already hints of chemistry challenges before the Malice. That is not the group you bet on to beat seasoned pros like the Spurs who also happened to be more talented.

Never said we would have won the title, especially against Pop and the Spurs. That's just a false narrative you created...

But I would say without hesitation that Stern had a legit vendetta against us being there in wake of the Shaq/Kobe break up. And just the fact we were robbed of a chance is disheartening to all Pacers fans...

50 games would have been a more natural suspension for Artest. His history helped earn him the full season.

 

[trojanfan12]

But I would say without hesitation that Stern had a legit vendetta against us being there in wake of the Shaq/Kobe break up. And just the fact we were robbed of a chance is disheartening to all Pacers fans...

50 games would have been a more natural suspension for Artest. His history helped earn him the full season.

If Artests' history earned him the full season instead of a 50 game suspension, how did Sterns' "legit vendetta" rob them of a chance at a title?

Seems to me that it was Artests' own behavior that cost them that chance.

 

[tlance]

Never said we would have won the title, especially against Pop and the Spurs. That's just a false narrative you created...

But I would say without hesitation that Stern had a legit vendetta against us being there in wake of the Shaq/Kobe break up. And just the fact we were robbed of a chance is disheartening to all Pacers fans...

50 games would have been a more natural suspension for Artest. His history helped earn him the full season.

There is no legitimate reason for Stern to have a vendetta against the Pacers. None.

This is typical you making up some BS conspiracy theory to support your fake narrative.

What Stern did was try to protect the image of the league and the investment dollars pouring in from white corporate America. He chose to make an example of the players involved in order to placate decision makers in charge of that revenue stream.

Pretty easy to see why he would dole out extra harsh suspensions.

And for the record, Artest got off easy. He should have faced more severe criminal charges.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

I'm the one with the fake narratives yet @tlance unprovokingly plays the race card. OK then.

 

[tlance]

I'm the one with the fake narratives yet @tlance unprovokingly plays the race card. OK then.

LOL.

Race was part of it for sure.

I watched the documentary. How many clips of white fans did they show calling the players “thugs”?

Stern couldn’t have that perception out there and it was absolutely part of why he came down so hard.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Claiming that Stern needed to cater to the racist pigs of the world is as bad an argument as any.

 

[tlance]

Claiming that Stern needed to cater to the racist pigs of the world is as bad an argument as any.

I didn’t say that.

He did have to cater to corporate America though. And he didn’t want NBA players to be perceived as thugs.

So he had to go big on the punishment to let the world know that going into the stands to fight a fan wouldn’t be tolerated. And he also chose to err on the side of “the customer is always right”.

There is absolutely no legit reason to think he had a “vendetta” against the Pacers. That is crazy talk.

What did the Pacers do to cause that?

 

[CitySushi]

Claiming that Stern needed to cater to the racist pigs of the world is as bad an argument as any.

No he had to cater to the consumer. Stern, of all things, was a savant at branding and marketing. That's why the NBA grew so much. It's why the dress code was implemented. It's why there was such a harsh penalty for fighting. The market dictates action taken. Unfortunately public perception was a driving factor in how harsh a penalty these players faced and the narratives the media portrayed.

For a guy who has so much knowledge of the game of basketball (and I do consider you knowledgeable) you should really consider the actual business of basketball for a lot of decisions being made in and around the game.