User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7399 seconds
56 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Was Bosh's injury last year catastrophic? If his injury last playoffs is just a little worse, and he misses game 7, the Celtics may very well win that series. Recall that game 7 was tied entering the 4th, and Bosh went 8-10 including 3-4 on 3s. Obviously, if the Heat are healthy, they should cruise in the East. However, I don't think they're unbeatable if one of Lebron/Wade/Bosh is hampered in some way.
Yes.
Agreed. Though I still think they make the Finals even if Wade or Bosh is hurt. The only way I see them not making it is if both of them are or if LeBron is. LeBron + either one of the other two should still be a Finals team in a conference this weak.
1) Miami: 58-24
2) Brooklyn: 49-33 (c'mon, DWill, don't make me admit that you really were overrated all these years...)
3) Boston: 48-34
4) Philly: 47-35
5) Indy: 47-35
6) New York: 46-36
7) Chicago: 45-37
8) Atlanta: 42-40
HC holds in the first round. Miami pounds Philly in the 2nd and Boston pulls off an incredibly minor "upset" against the Nets to advance to the ECF, giving KG and co one last hurrah before they're dispatched in 5.
West:
1) OKC: 60-22
2) LAL: 59-23
3) SA: 54-28
4) LAC: 52-30
5) Memphis: 50-32
6) Denver: 48-34 (Iggy will improve them some, though I'm still not as high on them as most people seem to be)
7) Dallas: 46-36
8) Utah: 44-38
9) Minny: 44-38 (Loses the tie breaker to the Jazz. Why? Cuz I said so, dammit)
HC holds in each of the first two rounds. Lakers beat OKC in 7 in the WCF to give Stern the ultimate superfriends Finals that he secretly wants, despite all the smoke he blows about caring about competitive balance and all that.
Heat repeat by beating Lakers in 6.
If that's what happens, the Bulls will beat NJ in 6. I don't know when to expect Rose back (IOW, I'm not sure how high to put the Bulls regular season record), but I do expect him for the playoffs and I do expect the Bulls to "upset" the higher seed they face in the first round (unless they finish 8th).
Or not so secretly - I recall him saying once on Simmons' podcast (I think that was where) that from a business standpoint his ideal Finals in any given year would be Lakers vs. Lakers.
Was looking back at last year's predictions. Maybe I'll try to summarize them and see who did best. Three things that stand out - everyone went high on the Knicks and low on the Spurs. Here's the third:
Yeah, this prediction was pretty much made under the assumption that Rose won't be at full strength even after he comes back. If he's truly healthy for the playoffs, then yes, Chicago should beat anyone other than Miami.
But like I said, I have little more than zero confidence in any Eastern Conference predictions other than the Heat as number 1. My East picks are basically just throwing numbers against the wall and seeing what sticks with you alls.
Yeah, I remember that. Even as a joke, I thought it was a dumb thing for the commish of a sport that already gets lots of criticism about this kind of thing to say out loud. It'd be like making a joke about the draft being rigged, or something like that.
1) Miami: 62-20--I think they're better than they were last year, and potentially significantly so. Also, the East as a whole is worse.
2) Chicago: 51-31--I don't think Rose was worth all that much to them last year. Noah should be better. Everyone's bad in the east!
3) Philadelphia: 48-34--3rd best simple rating last year. I dunno. I could see them missing the playoffs.
4) NYK: 46-36--Maybe Amar'e decides he can jump again, maybe they'll be terrible.
5) Brooklyn: 44-38--Relatively tame first round series that gets overhyped endlessly.
6) Boston: 42-40--They're all old, but at least ...
7) Atlanta: 40-42--They used to be good
8) Indiana: 38-44--Someone gets hurt, coach gets fired.
Honestly, is there another team in the East who will win 50 games? I put Chicago up there more out of a lack of options.
West:
1) LAL: 60-22--How bad can the bench really be?
2) OKC: 57-25--I don't think Harden is as good as he looked last year
3) SAS: 54-28--I want to be lower on them, but I can't in good conscience.
4) LAC: 50-32--They were pretty bad without Billups. They're one piece away.
5) Memphis: 48-34--I cannot get a good read on this team.
6) Houston: 46-36--There's always a new playoff team. Why not Houston?
7) Minnesota: 45-37--I dunno. Why the hell not? I don't believe in Dallas or Utah.
8) Denver: 44-38--Injuries? I dunno. They seemed to peak two years ago.
Irrational fanboy asides: I predict Sullinger will overtake Bass as the starting 4 and that Rondo will be in the top 3 of MVP voting.
East:
1) Miami: 64-18 -- LeBron will be better, Bosh will be better, Wade will be worse, bench will shoot 3s better.
2) Boston: 57-25 -- Depth = regular season wins.
3) Philly: 49-33 -- I'm assuming Bynum stays healthy and gets the knack of passing out of doubles early.
4) Chicago: 48-34 -- Their defense is more important to their record than Rose; their depth took a big hit, but is still good.
5) Indiana: 46-36 -- No leap, no real regression. Solid young team, but not a contender.
6) Knicks: 44-38 -- Hakeem's on the payroll, anyway.
7) Nets: 42-40 -- Barclay's will lead the league in American Spirit butts.
8) Toronto: 41-41 -- Could be sneaky good.
West:
1) OKC: 63-19 -- Yup.
2) LAL: 59-23 -- Dominant stretches, injured stretches.
3) Spurs: 56-26 -- Big three another year older, but I think Tiago and Leonard will both step up some.
4) Denver: 50-32 -- Probably not this good, but I want JaVale to work out and I think Iggy's a great pickup.
5) LAC: 48-34 -- Great core, but hackable frontline. Also, they gave HOW MUCH to Jamal Crawford?
6) Memphis: 47-35 -- Don't think the lockout did Z-Bo any favors, but that's over and Gay's back; still need spacing though.
7) Minnesota: 46-36 -- Roy will win 5 games by himself this season; he will also lose another 3 and miss about 30.
8) Warriors: 45-37 -- I believe in Bogut until events prove me wrong.
Most likely finals matchups, in order: Heat/LAL, Heat/OKC, Celtics/LAL, Celtics/OKC.
Again barring any catastophic injuries that no one could predict, the first two matchups are the only ones that I see as being possibilities.
Sorry NJ, but the Knicks aren't winning 60 games. ;-)
Depends which side of pedantics you to be on when you think they'll actually win 70 :D
1. MIA: 65-17--Too much Bron, Bosh and Allen. Wade will help when not hurt.
2. IND: 52-30--Paul George will be 2013's breakout star.
3. CHI: 48-34--Too much Thibs.
4. BOS: 47-35--Old, improved depth, but really, really old.
5. ATL: 48-34--Full season of Horford+improvement from Teague
6. NYK: 47-35--Everyone sucks.
7. PHI: 45-37--Bynum will help a lot, but I expect defensive regression and I don't believe in any of their wings.
8. BRK: 41-41--I don't see how they're going to guard anyone and Deron Williams is wildly overrated.
West
1. LAL: 66-16--I think they're incredible. I'm assuming Howard doesn't miss more than a week or so at the beginning of the year
2. OKC: 64-18--Business as usual.
3. SAS: 55-27--Assuming some Ginobli-Duncan decline offset by a bit of Leonard+Splitter and SAS being the NBA's answer to the Cardinals where everything they touch turns to gold.
4. DEN: 53-29--Gallo averages 20-6-4. McGee gets a clue. Manimal mauls. Ty Lawson misses the AS team because too many PGs.
5. LAC: 50-32--Same as last year. I don't see how/why they can/should get better unless Jordan develops and...yeah, no.
6. MEM: 48-34--Z-Bo should be better, but I expect Gasol to be a bit worse.
7. UTH: 46-36--Hoping Gordon Hayward finally puts it together, I like him.
8. MIN: 44-38--White Power.
MIL is going to push BRK for that 8th spot.
Knicks upset CHI in the 1st round as Shump's ACL locks up Rose's ACL. Knicks upset IND in Round 2 because Chandler can guard Hibbert single-coverage and IND's offense gets screwed up. Knicks are destroyed in ECF by vastly superior MIA team while legions of Knicks fans complain about the refs/league/God favoring MIA.
Spurs lose to MEM in the 1st round again. DEN beats LAC in a 7-game classic. LAL goes 4-0, 4-0 before beating OKC 4-1 in the WCF.
LAL over MIA in 7-games as Kobe hits the series clincher over LeBron, cementing his legacy as the 2nd best player ever.
Coach: Thibs
MVP: Howard
ROY: Eyebrow
DPOY: Howard
6th: Harden
East
MIA Definitely making the finals barring a crazy injury
IND Could be a spoiler
PHI They have the best chance at beating Miami
BOS Could be a spoiler
BRK I think their parts work well together on O and that they will end up being a decent team on D because of Avery Johnson.
NYK Not making out of the first round
CHI
ATL
West
OKC - Young Legs Deep Team, best wins
SAS - Young Legs (er sort of?) Deep team, good wins
LAL - Your Western Conference Champion!
DEN - Mile High means lots of wins, could be a spoiler for one of the above 3
MEM - ZBO gets a lot of Zbounds
MIN - Love cements his status
LAC - Someone important gets hurt
DAL - Dirk and good coaching can go a longs ways (probably not to 50 wins though)
ROY - Royce White does his best rookie lebron impression
DPOY - Howard
6th - Ginobili's last stand
MVP - LEBRONTASAURUS REX
Finals - LAL beats MIA
edit: Also, anyone got the link to the old predictions from last season? I can't find mine.
They have other areas they can improve. Griffin will likely continue to improve, Billups could play more, their record with him last year was very good, Bledsoe playing like he did in the playoffs would a huge upgrade, Odom would be a very big upgrade over Martin if plays well, Barnes is better than Butler but who knows what his minutes will look like.
The Clippers are team that could have a lot amount of variation in their record depending on what goes right and wrong with them.
I think he's maxed out.
Billups could play more
I think he's really old and coming back from a major injury. If he plays a lot of games, I doubt it will be for many minutes. If he plays a lot of minutes, I'm certain it will be over very few games.
Bledsoe playing like he did in the playoffs would a huge upgrade
I really liked Bledsoe at draft time, but I'm taking that performance with a grain of salt.
I guess I'm just pessimistic about all the LAC variables.
This is my take on them as well. In addition, Vinny del Negro is still their head coach.
!!!!
This factor is very important. If you replaced Vinny with like ... Rick Adelman or something, the Clippers would improve by 10 wins.
At age 23? That seems like a real stretch, especially considering how much room he has to improve at the line and on defense, which are both things that can be worked on. Just getting back to his rookie level of FT shooting would make a much better player than last year. He improved his FG% by forty points last year, if his FT shooting hadn't dropped so much he would have been one of the best volume scorers in the league.
The real place they can improve is Odom, but I have no idea what to expect from him this year. If he plays anywhere like he did on the Lakers, he's much better Martin who was pretty terrible last year. Odom might be completely washed up though.
Out of all the NBA teams in Philadelphia?
6) Boston: 42-40--They're all old, but at least ...
4. BOS: 47-35--Old, improved depth, but really, really old.
The average age of the Celtics likely nine man rotation is 28. Only Pierce, Terry, and Garnett are even older than 27. They are significantly younger than the Lakers, for one (avg rotation age ~31).
My statement was based on my belief that Garnett is what makes the team go. He's really ####### old. If he goes down, I think they are something less than a .500 quality team.
One of these years, you're gonna get what you've been wishing for and it's not going to be pretty. I would love to see the Knicks in the first round, I'd much rather the Bulls face them than almost any of the other likely East playoff teams.
The starting lineup that almost made the finals (minus Avery Bradley, who would have been huge checking Wade in the ECF) is all back, and the bench, who only scored 2 points (!) in game 7 vs the Heat, has added Jason Terry, Courtney Lee, Jeff Green, Darko, and Jared Sullinger.
I'm not hopping on the unlucky train again here, but a helluva lot broke right for the C's to be in that spot. So any comparison to last year's team needs to be made on their talent level/performance not the point where their season ended. Even while admitting they did improve their depth - which will definitely help them during the regular season, something that has hurt the C's in the recent past and is even more important now - none of those guys are, I don't want to say difference makers, but outside of Terry I don't see anyone there that's going to significantly impact a playoff series. The hype train is all over Sullinger, and while I agree he probably is better than his draft slot, I'm not convinced he's anything more than an passable bench player (and may not be in a playoff rotation). I saw how size and/or strength impacted him in college (Myers Leonard always gave him fits, for instance). Jeff Green was a terrible fit the first time around, why is it all of a sudden going to work for him after a year away? I'll refrain from making a crack about Darko, but that doesn't really fill a need IMO (playoff need, that is; KG could use any rest he can get). And while I'm ready and waiting to write off Pierce every year, I might finally be right this time.
And only Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker are 30 or over among the key Spurs.
That is your defensive anchor and by far your best big, your best scorer, and your sixth man who will probably finish most close games. I wrote a couple of years ago that I would take Boston and San Antonio seriously as long as Garnett and Duncan are playing, and I still feel that way. But Boston is a second-tier contender with major age at key spots.
As to the Lakers, Jordan Hill was diagnosed with a herniated disc yesterday, Howard still isn't playing, and Nash and Bryant will be the oldest backcourt in league history. MWP has supposedly lost about 20 pounds and is moving well, but the Lakers' starting lineup is as old as any I can remember, and they now have three guys with back issues.
So, while I will probably not make any systematic predictions until a day or two before the season starts if I make any at all, the safe bet is Miami/OKC II. Certainly if things break right, the Lakers are quite capable of being the best team in the NBA, and earlier I said they were co-favorites. But upon reflection, I think age/injury + Mike Brown puts them third in line if one is putting money down.
Pretty sure Stockton and Hornacek were older their last year or two together.
Edit: Yep
At the start of the 2012-2013 season:
Nash - 38 yrs, 8 mos
Kobe - 34 yrs, 2 mos
total - 72 yrs, 10 mos
At the start of the 1999-2000 season:
Stock - 37 yrs, 7 mos
Horny - 36 yrs, 5 mos
total - 74 yrs
Ok, but were they both in their 17th seasons?
Yeah, they're clearly in Group B if you're doing tiers of contenders. My point was only that predicting them to go 42-40 unless you're also predicting Garnett to miss half the season is likely a significant undersell, and that while a few key players are old, the rest of the roster is actually quite young.
EAST
1 Miami 62-20 - best team in basketball
2 Boston 52-30 - only East team (other than Chicago with a healthy Rose) with even a punchers chance at Miami
3 Indiana 49-33 - teams like this never win titles
4 Chicago 49-33 - the team no one will want to play in the postseason; they'll knock off Philly in round 1 as revenge for last year and give the Heat fits
5 Philadelphia 48-34 - Bynum helps, but regression elsewhere somewhat offsets it
6 NYK 45-37 - Knicks fans will alternately think they are headed for 60 wins or the lottery, depending on the month; ultimately same decent but mostly harmless results
7 Brooklyn 44-38 - better, but Joe Johnson makes you a contender?
8 Atlanta 42-40 - pass
WEST
1 OK City 61-21 - duh
2 LA Lakers 60-22 - nothing between 50 and 70 wins would surprise me
3 San Antonio 55-27 - the New England Partiots of the NBA
4 LA Clippers 53-29 - Chris Paul is still awesome
5 Denver 50-32 - teams like this never win titles
6 Memphis 48-34 - I think they may have peaked
7 Dallas 46-36 - Dirk should be enough to get to the dance
8 Minnesota 43-39 - could have put Houston or Utah here, but I went with the most fun team to watch of those three
Who will win the title? Grouping the playoff teams into tiers:
Group A: Miami, OKC, LA Lakers (One of these three teams will likely win the title)
Group B: Boston, San Antonio, Chicago, LA Clippers* (Stranger things have happened...)
Your two finalists will come from these seven teams, and most likely from Group A.
* If they get a new coach somehow
I'll take Miami over Boston in 5, the Lakers over OKC in 6, and Miami for the title in 6.
EAST
1. MIA 64-18
2. IND 52-30
WEST
1. SAS 60-22
2. DEN 59-23
This is probably a good bet. I could see them starting slowly - Odom is probably washed up, Billups might need some time, and the Bulls started slow every year under Vinny - and that could cause them to freak out about losing Paul.
!!?!
Not quite. Stock was in his 16th and Horny in his 15th (and final) season. My bad if you were referring more to NBA mileage than actual age.
Hey, since we couldn't win a title during that span, at least let us keep our record for the oldest (and whitest) backcourt of all time, dammit!
It's a rundown of each team, putting them in tiers.
He has Miami/OKC/LAL/SAS in a group, then Boston, then Memphis/LAC, then everyone else.
EDIT: Dammit, Joe C.
Wow. I call "no" on the Spurs, and "hell no" on the Nuggs. I would bet lots and lots of money that Denver will not finish with a better record than the Thunder or Lakers.
Your lack of Coke to Joe C. is disconcerting.
After the Iguodala deal, I quoted Beckley Mason going orgasmic with Denver, and there will be a lot of that this year in the blogosphere.
Serious question, if the projections are done statistically (I think they are, but could be wrong), then how is Lowe's first line at all relevant to Hollinger's stuff?
I don't think Miami will win this many games; they haven't actually been an overpowering regular-season team in the Amigos Era and as I have said, I think they will ease off the throttle a bit at times until postseason. I see them at 58-24 or so. I do agree with the idea that Indiana and Denver will be good regular-season teams, but I don't think that Denver can win more games than Oklahoma City will.
The projection numbers are based in part on how Hollinger evaluates players and assumptions he makes about them and their value; they don't just grow out of the ground like mushrooms. I don't mean that in a snarky way towards you, or as a criticism of Hollinger, but there is a subjective element that is part of projection systems. Hollinger was very high on Denver at times last year as well.
I don't mean this snarkily, but isn't that sort of obvious? Is even a healthy Rose good enough to carry a bunch of 3rd and 4th options to a title in a world with the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat?
Not sure I'm following. I always assumed his team projections were largely just PER with a mix of playing time allocation. Not sure how defense or anything else is accounted for.
That 2011 year was their chance. Heat still getting it together, no other dominant team. I still think they'll be a very tough out when Rose gets healthy, and while they have more of a shot than most teams, they'd need help just to make the FInals.
The article isn't organized that way. What he wrote:
I don't mean this snarkily, but isn't that sort of obvious? Is even a healthy Rose good enough to carry a bunch of 3rd and 4th options to a title in a world with the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat?
Tell me why it's obvious. They made a huge jump offensively last season, even with Rose missing half the year (5th in Ortg). We may never know, but the idea that they wouldn't have had a chance last year (or that retroactively they were super far off in 2011) is bogus.
I'm not saying they're "super far off." With a healthy Rose I would expect them to be the 3rd or 4th best team in the league, but clearly below the best 2 (probably 3, assuming the Lakers find their way early). You don't think the Thunder and Heat are obviously better?
That's a little confusing then. Either he expects one of New York, Philly and Brooklyn to miss the playoffs or he expects all the teams "competing for the 8th seed" to be competing for 9th place.
2. Indiana- 51-31. Pretty much a wash with where they were last year, but that puts them in a good position.
3. Boston- 49-33. Losing Ray counts for something and Avery Bradley has a pretty small sample of success. Better depth, solid postseason chances.
4. New York- 48-34. Better than record last year. Better results if they skip wildly tumultuous portion. Does depth offset age?
5. Atlanta- 47-35. Having Horford back more than offsets losing Johnson. Scary wing defense if Morrow/Korver play together.
6. Chicago- 45-37. Last year gave us a good idea of what they look like w/o Rose. Do not know what they look like w/o bench yet.
7. Philadelphia- 45-37. Swapping Iggy for Bynum is probably a plus, but they didn't do enough to replace Brand, Meeks, Williams.
8. Milwaukee- 43-39. Lots of solid but unspectacular players. Positive pythag last year and lost little.
9. Brooklyn- 41-41. After looking at the numbers, I was trying to talk myself into a few more wins to squeeze them into the playoffs, then I thought, "wait, why do I care if they are in the playoffs?" This is still a big improvement for them.
----
1. Oklahoma City- 58-24. Seems like they will be about as good as they were last year.
2. LA Lakers- 56-26. I have seen much higher projections, but this is a huge improvement. Weak bench, can hang with anyone in playoffs.
3. San Antonio- 55-27. Seems unlikely that they'll have such solid seasons from so many role players, but it always seems that way.
4. Denver- 49-33. I can't tell if this means I'm high on them. I think I am. They seem really good to me.
5. LA Clippers- 47-35. I think they are no better than last year. Replaced last year's disappointing role players with bigger name role players who are even likelier to disappoint.
6. Minnesota- 45-37. Will just expect "ok" from Roy and Rubio and hope one does well. Pekovic will be 2nd best player.
7. Memphis- 45-37. Didn't like their offseason, replaced some solids with question marks. Very reliant on ZBo bounce back.
8. Utah- 43-39. Hard to be worse on the wings outside of Hayward. Al probably had career year, but backup bigs are improving.
9. Dallas- 41-41. Like Brookly, why are they entitled to the playoffs? Kaman, Mayo, and Collison are not that good.
COY- Vogel. Who knows how the media sets the parameters for these things?
ROY- Davis. Don't get too cute.
MVP- LeBron. Howard will only win it if Lakers have best record, and they have a tougher road. Same for Durant.
6th Man- Harden. I have no idea.
I debated this long enough last year that I have no stomach for it anymore. As Moses said, the idea that a healthy Chicago wasn't in the same tier as Miami and OKC is ludicrous. Would they have been the favorite against the Heat? Of course not, but it's not like they were chum either. Had it come to it, I bet vegas would have had them slight favorites against the Thunder. By most stats, advanced or otherwise, Chicago was a better team then the Thunder last year.
Chicago just got to the playoffs after an exhausting yet very successful regular season and proceeded to lose a top 5 NBA player and a top 30 player in the span of 3 games. It sucked ass and I'm still bitter.
Where exactly are we disagreeing? Me saying "obvious" and you saying "of course not?" I'm not getting the distinction.
I think you probably disagree about how good a shot Chicago with Noah and Rose would have had of actually winning the NBA title.
Given James' gifts and the narrative surrounding him, it sort of seems "inevitable" that it was Miami's time to win (not saying you personally feel that way--just that that is the narrative)and ISTM that the Chicago fans are saying a healthy Chicago squad would have had plenty to say about that outcome.
I agree. It seems like there are guys at the bottom of every roster who are totally unpredictable and could swing the final result 4 games in either direction. A lot of those teams seem fairly stable at the top, but the things that differentiate them are very subtle and could go in a lot of different directions. I guess that is a reason to prefer teams with better health and coaching, which would probably favor Indy and disfavor Atlanta.
Yes. Your post implies no chance, which to be fair, may be Matt and I reading into it. I would also disagree with Lowe's comment (that you said was obvious) that 2011 was their best shot; I think they were notably better last year and I think (feel, fanboy project?) a healthy Bulls team would have taken a healthy Heat team. The Bulls are (were?) one of the teams that could match up with the Heat small lineup, but like Matt, I think I'm done reliving last year. I'm also not ready to write off this year yet either. The more I look at the East, the more I still suspect the Bulls could (should?) get at least the 2 seed*. And while we've talked about the ACL recovery time before, I see no reason - barring a setback - to assume Rose won't be healthy come playoff time (although I do understand why others would doubt that); of course, that doesn't mean he'll be 100% either. I'm starting to convince myself they're gonna be back in the ECF this season...
*They've dealt with major injury problems both of the last 2 seasons (and will again this year even if no one else gets hurt), and still were the best regular season team both years.
Don't mean to put words in anyone's fingers, but I think this point is an acknowledgment of the fact that Noah and Rose were hurt last year so they weren't going to beat MIA. I think you and Matt may be coming at it from the POV of CHI at the time they entered the playoffs and Noah and Rose were healthy. That could be the disconnect.
as for meeks, they now have jason richardson and nick young at SG, and i think both are significant upgrades over what meeks gave the team last season.
as for williams, yeah, i have concerns about that, too, but again, having bynum should ease quite a bit of the scoring load.
The Bulls could get the two seed, certainly. I think a lot of the relative bearishness on Chicago is (well, for me at least) two things: 1) uncertainty around Rose's recovery and 2) who is the second scorer on that team? Boozer is solid, but appears to be on the decline and doesn't create his own shot. Deng is a nice player, but needs to go back to his pre-2012 more efficient self. Noah is a fine player, but creating offense is not where his game is at. The defense plus Rose makes them a fine team - and their style (all out defensively with big minutes for starters) gives them an advantage in the regular season - but that would be the weakest set of top four players on a title team since...I don't know, the 1979 Sonics? Maybe the '04 Pistons. Problem is, the '04 Pistons didn't have any team as good as this current Miami club (let alone the Thunder or Lakers) to deal with. There's certainly no way I'd pick them to beat the Heat without an injury to Lebron, Wade, or Bosh.
Who Miami plays in the ECF will depend heavily on how the seeds break, IMO. I picked Boston because I had Chicago as the 4 and having to play Miami in round two. If the seeds are different, that might change my pick.
Key words: "regular season". The resular season and playoffs are significantly different animals in the NBA. To put it another way: given the way Thibs has them play during the season, do they have another gear for the playoffs? The Celtics do (granting that a healthy Celtics team probably falls short against a healthy Bulls team), and so do the Heat. I don't think it's clear whether the Bulls do or not yet. It's for a somewhat similar reason that I don't think a team like Denver deserves to be taken seriously as a contender.
This I agree with. I would have given the Bulls roughly the same chance to beat Miami last year as I did in 2011 (which is to say I'd expect them to lose but it wouldn't have totally shocked me if they had won). Obviously, once Rose went down, that was out the window, and that's why I described 2011 as what may have been their best shot.
Miami Heat 11/5
Los Angeles Lakers 5/2
Oklahoma City Thunder 9/2
Chicago Bulls 14/1
Boston Celtics 18/1
San Antonio Spurs 18/1
Los Angeles Clippers 25/1
Brooklyn Nets 30/1
Dallas Mavericks 33/1
Indiana Pacers 35/1
Memphis Grizzlies 35/1
New York Knicks 35/1
Philadelphia 76ers 50/1
Denver Nuggets 66/1
Houston Rockets 75/1
Atlanta Hawks 75/1
Minnesota Timberwolves 75/1
Portland Trailblazers 100/1
Utah Jazz 100/1
Golden State Warriors 125/1
Milwaukee Bucks 125/1
New Orleans Hornets 150/1
Orlando Magic 150/1
Phoenix Suns 150/1
Cleveland Cavaliers 200/1
Detroit Pistons 200/1
Sacramento Kings 200/1
Toronto Raptors 200/1
Washington Wizards 200/1
Charlotte Bobcats 500/1
Brooklyn looks too high to me but otherwise pretty reasonable.
As a fellow wrestling fan, I see what STEAGLES did there. It is a common practice to use adjectives other than "best" to make someone sound better than they are. Bynum is dominant in the way that Andre the Giant was dominant. He was never the best, but he could smash people.
To this and Joe's point, fair enough.
but that would be the weakest set of top four players on a title team since...I don't know, the 1979 Sonics? Maybe the '04 Pistons.
Would Rose have been the best player on either of those teams?
Deng is a nice player, but needs to go back to his pre-2012 more efficient self.
Well, I'm sure part of that decline last year was the wrist injury. Since he decided to forgo surgery (so he could play in the Olympics), I'm interested in seeing how he plays with it this year. Similar to others who played through that injury (like Kobe), he always talked about pain tolerance and that being the main struggle. Now that he's had a year to get used to it, how will it affect him? I'm skeptical that it won't be a problem until it gets fixed (next offseason at the earliest).
That's totally fair. I put a decent amount of thought into my rankings, but those win totals were me shooting from the hip and not really bothering to aim much as long as 1 > ... > 8.
As far as Celtics' age goes, I think both sides have been conflating regular-season and playoffs. The Celtics have pretty quietly assembled a deep, mostly young rotation; that will help enormously to keep the regular season wins coming. The last several years Doc has had a perennial "play Pierce 40 minutes a night or have zero supplementary shot creation" dilemma down the stretch-- Terry's off-the-bounce game and Green's ability to soak up minutes at the 3 will both do an enormous amount to mitigate that. Come playoff time, the age critique begins to hold a lot more water, but regardless, their regular-season win total will likely be better than recent years. That said, I cosign the notion that spots 3-6 in the East could go shake out in almost any order.
For Garnett specifically, there isn't any conclusive evidence that age has dramatically sapped his game yet. His early struggles last season were those of an out-of-shape system player who also didn't have the benefit of training camp to get up to speed; before that, he took about a season and a half to recover from a serious knee injury. He is absolutely ancient in NBA years, yes, but as long as he maintains his conditioning (by all accounts he does almost obsessively, given a season to schedule around) and a low-impact offensive game, he could potentially grind out several more years at a high level. There's at least a little precedent for hyperathletic string bean seven-footers playing to a very old age. He could also come to a shuddering halt before the next All-Star break; there's nothing to say for sure. As a fan, I'm inclined to optimism; I'll happily grant others their pessimism, but not any certainty.
Jeff Green sucks. And that was before he missed a year.
This is going to be my fanboy pick of the year: Jeff Green is going to be totally good this year. Not quite worth his salar... you know what, screw it. Totally worth his salary. This year. What's the best dollars-to-performance metric? I want to see how bad this statement looks by spring.
Yes, he would. He's historically weak for a best player on a champion, though, at least at the moment.
He's makes a fine 7th or 8th man - he defends reasonably well at multiple positions, can run the floor with Rondo.
Also, you misspelled his last name: W-O-R-T-H-Y.
EAST
1. MIA 59-23
2. NYK 54-28
3. CHI 47-35
4. TOR 45-37
5. BOS 44-38
6. ATL 42-40
7. IND 41-41
8. BRK 41-41
WEST
1. OKC 59-23
2. DEN 58-24
3. SAS 55-27
4. MIN 53-29
5. LAL 51-31
6. LAC 50-32
7. MEM 45-37
8. UTH 43-39
The piece also has a player ranking chart. James is #1 and Paul is #4. Joakim Noah, Tyson Chandler, Kawhi Leonard, Andre Iguodala and Kenneth Faried are 2,3,5,6 and 7.
You guys know the old myth about the Pythagorean cult drowning a man who threatened to publicize the fact that root 2 isn't expressible as a ratio? I sort of get that vibe from WoW sometimes, but with actual basketball instead of irrational numbers.
Not in their defense, it's WoW.
Yeah, but it's still funny.
Duhon and Meeks are both in the Top 180, so if Bryant had played the second half against GS, it would have been a 50-0 run.
On a more serious note, when my BaskPro book arrives, I think I will start with Denver. I think they have a nice team, but maybe I am missing something about them and they are better than I think.
I guess I can squint and get the rest of those guys (although Noah was pretty bad last year). But a guy who was benched in the playoffs? Really?
I'd sell on all of these.
Man, if I bet on sports, I'd sure think about those.
(*) with rebounds a close second
toronto at 4 would surprise me greatly, but the east is such a mess that who knows. if jv develops quickly, that would go a long way...
hawks underused mcgrady last year, imo - he can still play, just not every night.
It's nutty, of course, but it wouldn't come as a shock to me if they snuck into the playoffs. Wouldn't put money on it though.
I don't bet, either, but if I were berg, I might put $100 down on the Wolves at 75-1 just for the hell of it. 66-1 seems way too long on Denver to me; I think they are about 20-1.
Really, rr? I don't see any realistic scenario for them to get out of the West, much less win the title. They would easily be the most unlikely champion in the history of the league.
For DEN, I would think it would require the seeding working out so that they someone (most likely OKC) takes out LAL, then getting lucky against OKC. I think it's possible (not probable) for them to beat all the other Western contenders, but OKC and LAL are the teams I don't see them having a shot against.
The condensed schedule really made that difficult since McGrady couldn't play back-to-back games and couldn't finish a handful of the games in which he appeared. So the logistics of giving him a regular role were tough. Plus, he was horrible in the Celtics series, suggesting either he needed to be spotted against weaker opposition or was worn down even playing limited minutes in a limited number of games.
That's the thing with playing the odds regarding NBA teams; it doesn't really matter what Vegas has them at, it's pretty much a complete waste of money to put down anything on anybody but the top 3 or 4. There aren't really "darkhorse" champions in the NBA like there are in other sports except maybe once a decade. For someone who follows the league, the NBA champ should be in your top 4 or so preseason picks probably about 90 percent of the time. I'd be very, very surprised if anyone other than Miami, LAL, or OKC won the title.
Denver should definitely have better odds than several of the teams ahead of them, but I still wouldn't bet a dime on them since their shot at the title is basically zero, IMO.
2) Chicago: 49-33
3) Boston: 48-34
4) Philly: 47-35
5) Indy: 47-35
6) New York: 46-36
7) Brooklyn: 45-37
8) Atlanta: 42-40
Before our preseason picks are "locked in", I think I'm gonna flip the Bulls and Nets on my original rankings from #103. Moving a team from 7th to 2nd and vice versa would normally be a pretty big switch, but in this case it's only 4 wins, so I'll stick with the proven winner rather than gambling on the unknown. And like others have alluded to, I think 2-7 are basically interchangeable anyways and could play out in any random order. This puts Chicago in the 2nd round for sure, but I'll stick with my pick of Boston facing Miami in the ECF. My West predictions remain the same.
My work here is done.
For DEN, I would think it would require the seeding working out so that they someone (most likely OKC) takes out LAL, then getting lucky against OKC. I think it's possible (not probable) for them to beat all the other Western contenders, but OKC and LAL are the teams I don't see them having a shot against.
And then, even if they were lucky enough to get this far, they'd still have to beat Miami.
Again, lots of overrating of the Knicks, underrating of the Spurs. Proper rating of OKC (nearly everyone had them losing in the Finals) and PHI (with the exception of one of us).
King Mekong, since you asked, yours are in post 1299.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main