The Indiana Pacers have a collection of the most underappreciated players in the NBA making up the core of their team. While Tyrese Haliburton is probably still a bit underrated, he gets credit as a top point guard and franchise superstar. The same cannot be said about the rest of the starting lineup.
Pascal Siakam and Ivica Zubac are often called star players, put treated more like high-level starters by the larger basketball community. Maybe it's their versatility and their all-around play.
It's an unfortunate truth that better players often aren't seen as good when they do everything well, rather than for a single outstanding skill without the overall skill set to make the most of it. Steph Curry's shooting would be far less valuable without his off-ball movement and his handle to free him up to shoot from so far. One-dimensionality lowers the impact of any player.
The same can be said about role players. They are praised for their most notable traits, not as much for the little things they do. Just think of the term "three-and-D" and what it means. It strips players down to their ability to space from distance and to defend.
Why is Aaron Nesmith only his three-point percentage and his defensive tape? What about his cutting ability? What about the way he searches out and finds space in the chaos of a fast break?
To that end, Siakam and Zubac both have very little they can't do, but also very little where they stand out. That has led to that failure of fans to understand their value. The same was true for a great many years for other famous Pacers.
Is it just Indiana?
Indiana has never had a truly singular superstar. Instead, they've had some of the most well-rounded players of their eras. Victor Oladipo and Paul George were the logical endpoint of how far you could take the archetype of a three-and-D wing (yes, I know I just talked about how terrible that designation is).
Reggie Miller was the shooter of his era, but that was only fully leveraged when he was too old to continue to be an on-ball shot creator. His stature as the greatest Pacer of all time continues to mythologize him even if his records have been largely erased in an era where 60% of the league shoots more than he did.
It's sad to see, though. Great players should get credited not for their 2K ratings but for how good they are and how much they drive winning.
People talk about Haliburton's playmaking, but not how they do it. They praise Zubac for becoming a great starter after being included as a throw in in a deal for Mike Muscala, but fail to consider how he got there.
So many basketball conversations focus on player development and excellence as monolithic, as opposed to the truth of the matter that basketball is like art. Trying to define a player's value only by their best and not by their total image is why AI art is somehow popular despite its soulless, vacuous nature.
The sport is misunderstood by the people who never truly wanted to engage with it. Somehow, the Pacers are among the most punished for it.
Add us as a preferred source on Google