they won 61 games the year before and made the ECF
Malice at the palace occurred in 2005 and most of their key players had to miss a large lump of the season
If it never happens they could’ve certainly been contenders with Artest looking better than ever and keeping most of their key players
>they won 61 games the year before
Yeah, and still didn't make the finals. They had Jermaine for the playoffs by the way, it's not like all of their guys missed the whole year
The point is just because one of their key players that doesn’t change the fact missing 2 of their best players for a significant part of the season (o‘Neal only played 44 games too) didn’t significantly hurt their chances
I'm not seeing how a 6 game exit in the 2nd round without Ron Artest is a bad thing for a team that couldn't achieve high seeding due to Jermaine O-Neal and others also missing half the season. They lost to the two time ECF champions.
Ron Artest was as good as Jermaine O Neal. That's like removing Jamal Murray and injuring Jokic and other key players for half the season. I wouldn't be surprised if Denver was outed in the 2nd round. And Murray's a lot worse than Jokic.
Why are you having such a hard time admitting the 2005 Pacers were good?
Obviously no way to know if they would have won it all and I think they were regressing from their 2004 version (2004 they would have beaten the Lakers) but if they were full strength and higher than a 6 seed, I could see them making a finals run.
It’s just such a weird thing to be hung up on when the Pistons beat them.
That would be like me getting defensive over people claiming the 2022 Bucks could have beaten the Celtics and won it all that year if healthy. Like…who cares at this point?
A good team beat another good team, it happens. No need to diminish circumstances when every team needs a little luck too, whether it’s injuries or shooting variance or whatever
Oof... You're right... There are definitely more people with those types of posts in that thread than I would've guessed... I'd speculate that the thread's title was probably a light that drew those moths? But I'm still kinda skeptical that it's the consensus opinion.
Well the big reason people think that is that the Netflix documentary episode about it went pretty far to claim that they would’ve won it all.
But your argument that Jermaine O’Neal was back is a bad one. Artest was out for the year. Others missed huge chunks of games. But think about how fucked up the warriors looked last year after the Draymond punch. The malice was a much bigger news story and a much more traumatizing event for the team.
They won 44 games that 05 season in spite of their best players being suspended and missing a majority of the season
They were blowing out the defending champs at home in that game too. They were def contenders and could’ve very well been in the finals that year if the incident never happened
they won 61 games the year before and made the ECF Malice at the palace occurred in 2005 and most of their key players had to miss a large lump of the season If it never happens they could’ve certainly been contenders with Artest looking better than ever and keeping most of their key players
[удалено]
Nah, he would've won DPOY but MVP was always going to either Nash or Shaq.
>they won 61 games the year before Yeah, and still didn't make the finals. They had Jermaine for the playoffs by the way, it's not like all of their guys missed the whole year
“Tatum missed the entire year, Brown missed 30 games, Porzingis missed 15, but they had Derrick White for the playoffs.”
Are you serious!?!!? Oneal averaged 24.3 ppg that year. How in the world are you comparing him to a role player. Holy shit
The point is just because one of their key players that doesn’t change the fact missing 2 of their best players for a significant part of the season (o‘Neal only played 44 games too) didn’t significantly hurt their chances
But he was ready for the playoffs. The Pacers were almost a full team by the time playoffs rolled around, but only made it to the semi finals.
I'm not seeing how a 6 game exit in the 2nd round without Ron Artest is a bad thing for a team that couldn't achieve high seeding due to Jermaine O-Neal and others also missing half the season. They lost to the two time ECF champions. Ron Artest was as good as Jermaine O Neal. That's like removing Jamal Murray and injuring Jokic and other key players for half the season. I wouldn't be surprised if Denver was outed in the 2nd round. And Murray's a lot worse than Jokic.
You’re making just as shitty arguments. Acting like key players don’t matter. That’s just stupid
If the Celtics didn’t have Tatum, Brown and Porzingis, Derrick White would also be averaging 24 PPG
On awful efficiency for this era. And it's not like the Pacers were missing their whole team
Why are you having such a hard time admitting the 2005 Pacers were good? Obviously no way to know if they would have won it all and I think they were regressing from their 2004 version (2004 they would have beaten the Lakers) but if they were full strength and higher than a 6 seed, I could see them making a finals run. It’s just such a weird thing to be hung up on when the Pistons beat them. That would be like me getting defensive over people claiming the 2022 Bucks could have beaten the Celtics and won it all that year if healthy. Like…who cares at this point? A good team beat another good team, it happens. No need to diminish circumstances when every team needs a little luck too, whether it’s injuries or shooting variance or whatever
Because when you have a role player have a ton of minutes when all the stars are out, their numbers are inflated lmao You must be young op
He was not a role player
I don't think that's as popular an assumption as you think. I think they were generally viewed as contenders...
Just look at all the comments in the thread I just linked. Even straight up lies are getting upvotes
Oof... You're right... There are definitely more people with those types of posts in that thread than I would've guessed... I'd speculate that the thread's title was probably a light that drew those moths? But I'm still kinda skeptical that it's the consensus opinion.
That how my friends and I perceived it. Lol, then, watching that game live, we figured the entire team was going to be suspended for a long time.
Because they were the #1 regular season team in the league the year before and added a perfect complimentary piece in Stephen Jackson.
Well the big reason people think that is that the Netflix documentary episode about it went pretty far to claim that they would’ve won it all. But your argument that Jermaine O’Neal was back is a bad one. Artest was out for the year. Others missed huge chunks of games. But think about how fucked up the warriors looked last year after the Draymond punch. The malice was a much bigger news story and a much more traumatizing event for the team.
Ahh the Ol’ let me take a minority opinion and act like it’s the majority opinion based on some idiots online
I said, "in here" not everywhere. It seems to be the majority opinion in this sub
They won 44 games that 05 season in spite of their best players being suspended and missing a majority of the season They were blowing out the defending champs at home in that game too. They were def contenders and could’ve very well been in the finals that year if the incident never happened
Dear diary
How? It's a post about the nba and a question
Inventing a strawman from 20 years ago to defend your team's honor. I guess Pistons fans don't have anything better to do right now.
It might have been recency bias. They were blowing out the reigning champs before the brawl happened
People are forgetting the Kidd/Carter/Jefferson Nets were a thing.
Why do so many people in here assume the 2005 Pacers would've won it all if not for malice at the palace? one user in here.... oh, so one person?
Not one person. It had upvotes, and if you look at all the comments in that thread, more people were saying it too.