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 0.6822 seconds
51 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.
This is bait, isn't it?
It's my view that it should pretty much be Popovich until he retires (unless maybe Thibodeau wins a championship or two). Shouldn't the best coach in the NBA win the award for coaching in the NBA?
Working in the Lakers' favor is the fact that Barnes plays well in transition and plays well with Sessions. In the last game against Denver, the only one in which the Lakers had Sessions, Barnes had the best game of his Lakers' career, and maybe his whole career, going 9/11 from the field and scoring 24 points.
Another thing to wacth will be JaVale McGee against Bynum. Bynum gave Nene a lot of trouble, and was very good against McGee as well, but McGee himself was 7/ in the game and he is explosive.
Denver will be a trendy pick, and if Gallinari and Lawson go off a couple of times, I can see Denver winning in 6. If there is a Game 7, MWP will be eligible to play in it, and might well have an impact.
Sure, they *can*. I don't think it's particularly likely, but depending on how other people pick, it might be a good arbitrage opportunity for you.
I would put DEN at a 30-40% chance to win the series. Other people's mileage may vary.
With Davis, they might be beating them by 16.
watch
Unfortunately in COY voting, those two questions are often one and the same.
Quoting NJ from the last page: "Probably the same reason the batting title goes to the guy with the highest AVG rather than most H."
No, but a guy who hits .350 in 130 games is considered the batting champ over a guy who hits .345 in 160 games.
No, but I think most fans would know that Jordan has the highest scoring average of all time. Very few people would know how many total points he ended up with, and no one (not even me) would think Karl Malone was a better scorer just because he finished with more overall points.
76ers/Bulls
Celtics/Hawks
Knicks/Heat
Magic/Pacers
WEST
Jazz/Spurs
Clippers/Grizzlies
Mavericks/Thunder
Nuggets/Lakers
I would guess Spurs, Grizzlies, Thunder, and Lakers make it to round two in the West (to go along with Bulls, Heat, Celtics, Pacers back East).
EAST
76ers/Bulls-CHI in 5
Celtics/Hawks-BOS in 7
CHI over BOS in 7
Knicks/Heat-MIA in 4
Magic/Pacers-IND in 5
MIA over IND in 5
MIA over CHI in 7
WEST
Jazz/Spurs-SAS in 5
Clippers/Grizzlies-MEM in 7
MEM over SAS in 7
Mavericks/Thunder-OKC in 7
Nuggets/Lakers-LAL in 7
OKC over LAL in 5
OKC over MEM in 7
FINALS
MIA over OKC in 6
EAST
Bulls in 5
Heat in 4
Pacers in 5
Celtics in 7
Bulls in 6
Heat in 5
Bulls in 7
WEST
Spurs in 7
Thunder in 5
Nuggets in 6
Grizzlies in 5
Grizzlies in 6
Thunder in 5
Grizzlies in 7
FINALS
Bulls in 7
EAST
Bulls in 5
Heat in 5
Pacers in 6
Hawks in 6
Bulls in 6
Heat in 5
Heat in 5
WEST
Spurs in 4
Thunder in 6
Lakers in 6
Grizzlies in 6
Spurs in 5
Thunder in 7
Thunder in 6
FINALS
Thunder in 6 (Since LeBron teams always seem to lose in 6)
I was really impressed with him during last year's playoffs. He seems a little intense, so he might eventually wear that team out. I expected them to be good this year (had them in the 2nd round), but not this good. I do wonder though if they've peaked with the current roster. George could still take another step, but that could just be cancelled out by regressions from Granger, West, and Hibbert.
Maybe Thibodeau was as good this year, but Popovich has been great for a long time. And if Thibodeau wins, he'll have more COY awards than Popovich does, right? That shouldn't happen unless Thibodeau has clearly been better, IMO.
I agree in theory but hate this argument. The award is for this year, so Pops shouldn't get extra credit for things that have happened in previous years. There's a good enough argument to be made for him winning based solely on this year's performance. Maybe by the end of Thibs career, everyone will consider him the greatest coach of all time and will wonder how he only won once.
76ers/Bulls and Knicks/Heat seem pretty awesome for 1/8 and 2/7 matchups, at least in theory.
Awesome how? I've already said I see the Bulls winning in five, and I agree with the previous 2 predictions of the Heat in four. If the Sixers were as good as they looked early in the year and if the Knicks were 100% healthy, then maybe they'd be awesome series. But they'd also be 2nd round matchups in that case. Of the 8 series, these are going to be the least competitive 2 (maybe the Pacers will stomp the Magic); I'd say they're the least 2 awesome series.
EAST
76ers/Bulls-CHI in 5
Celtics/Hawks-BOS in 7
Knicks/Heat-MIA in 4 (can imagine Carmelo stealing one)
Magic/Pacers-IND in 5 (least interesting 1st round series, IMO)
CHI over BOS in 7 (Alot of 81-77 type games)
MIA over IND in 5
MIA over CHI in 6
WEST
Jazz/Spurs-SAS in 5
Clippers/Grizzlies-MEM in 7 (VDN costs them a game somehow)
Mavericks/Thunder-OKC in 6
Nuggets/Lakers-LAL in 6
MEM over SAS in 6
OKC over LAL in 7
OKC over MEM in 7
Finals
MIA over OKC in 6
Knicks/Heat is fun in theory, even if it will probably be a blowout. I'm still looking forward to watching it.
OTOH, I expect Bulls/Sixers to be a bit of a snoozefest. The Bulls should win easily, and I can't think of many compelling reasons (objectively) to be excited about it.
I'd have to guess Steve Kerr, right?
(looks it up)
Yep. Stephen Curry is #2!
Mid-range jumpers off curl screens aren't your cup of tea?
I really think George has a shot at being a stud. I agree with your point that this may be as good as they get though.
1st round series ordered from most to least exciting (trying to be objective):
Clippers/Grizzlies
Mavericks/Thunder
Nuggets/Lakers
Jazz/Spurs
Knicks/Heat
Celtics/Hawks
76ers/Bulls
Magic/Pacers
Jazz over Spurs in 4.
Jazz over Grizz in 4.
Jazz over Thunder in 4.
Jazz over Heat in 4.
More likely scenario -
First Round:
Spurs over Jazz 4-2 (c'mon boys, prove me wrong!)
Thunder over Mavs 4-2
Lakers over Nuggs 4-2
Grizz over Clips 4-3
Bulls over Sixers 4-1
Heat over Knicks 4-0
Pacers over Magic 4-1
Celts over Hawks 4-2
Conference Semi's:
Spurs over Grizz 4-3
Thunder over Lakers 4-2
Bulls over Celts 4-3
Heat over Pacers 4-1
Conference Finals:
Thunder over Spurs 4-2
Heat over Bulls 4-2
Finals:
Heat over Thunder 4-2
Predictions:
EAST
76ers/Bulls-CHI in 5
Celtics/Hawks-BOS in 6
Knicks/Heat-MIA in 4
Magic/Pacers-IND in 5
CHI over BOS in 6
MIA over IND in 6
CHI over MIA in 7
WEST
Jazz/Spurs-SAS in 6
Clippers/Grizzlies-MEM in 7 (only series where I can see either team winning)
Mavericks/Thunder-OKC in 6
Nuggets/Lakers-LAL in 5
MEM over SAS in 7
OKC over LAL in 5
OKC over MEM in 6
Finals
CHI over OKC in 7
I agree, actually. Celts/Hawks is the only one that I see even being somewhat competitive, and even then I think I was generous to give Atlanta two wins. Pacers/Magic would have been close if Dwight was playing, but as it is now, it seems the Magic just want to get this season over with.
I can see the Hawks beating the Celtics. I wouldn't pick it, but it wouldn't shock me if it happened.
Then again, it wouldn't shock me to see the Celtics beat the Bulls in round 2, either. I certainly wouldn't expect it or pick it, but I wouldn't be *shocked*.
Only if Horford pulls a Willis Reed. But I thought he said he's officially out the entire first round.
Ooh, hadn't realized that. Thought for some reason he'd be back. Yeah, I really like the Celtics chances.
76ers/Bulls-Chicago in 5
Celtics/Hawks-Boston in 5
Knicks/Heat-Miami in 5
Magic/Pacers-Pacers in 6
Chicago over Boston in 5
Miami over Indiana in 6
Miami over Chicago in 6
West
Jazz/Spurs-San Antonio in 5
Clippers/Grizzlies-Memphis in 7
Mavericks/Thunder-Oklahoma City in 5
Nuggets/Lakers-Los Angeles in 7
San Antonio over Memphis in 7
Oklahoma over Los Angeles in 6
Oklahoma City over San Antonio in 6
Finals
Miami over Oklahoma in 6
Bulls over 76ers in 5
Heat over Knicks in 4
Pacers over Magic in 6
Celtics over Hawks in 7
Spurs over Jazz in 6
Thunders over Mavericks in 5
Lakers over Nuggets in 5
Clippers over Grizzlies in 7
Bulls over Celtics in 7
Heat over Pacers in 5
Spurs over Clippers in 6
Thunder over Lakers in 6
Bulls over Heat in 6
Thunder over Spurs in 7
Thunder over Bulls in 7
76ers/Bulls - CHI in 6
Celtics/Hawks - BOS in 6
Knicks/Heat - MIA in 5
Magic/Pacers - IND in 5
CHI over BOS in 7
MIA over IND in 6
MIA over CHI in 7
WEST
Jazz/Spurs - SAS in 5
Clippers/Grizzlies - MEM in 7
Mavericks/Thunder - OKC in 7
Nuggets/Lakers - LAL in 7
SAS over MEM in 6
OKC over LAL in 5
OKC over SAS in 7
Finals
MIA over OKC in 7
Celtics/Hawks-Hawks in 7
Knicks/Heat-Heat in 5
Magic/Pacers-Pacers in 5
Bulls over Hawks in 5
Heat over Indiana in 5
Heat over Bulls in 7
West
Jazz/Spurs-Spurs in 7
Clippers/Grizzlies-Clippers in 6
Mavericks/Thunder-Thunder in 5
Nuggets/Lakers-Los Angeles in 6
Spurs over Clippers in 5
Thunder over Lakers in 6
Thunder over Spurs in 7
Finals
Heat over Thunder in 6
Bulls/76ers - Bulls in 5
Celtics/Hawks - Celts in 6
Knicks/Heat - Heat in 4
Magic/Pacers - Pacers in 5
Bulls/Celtics - Bulls in 6
Heat/Pacers - Heat in 5
Bulls/Heat - Heat in 6
West
Jazz/Spurs - Spurs in 5
Clippers/Grizzlies - Clips in 6
Mavs/OKC - OKC in 5
Nugs/LAL - LAL in 6
Spurs/Clips - Spurs in 6
OKC/LAL - OKC in 7
OKC/Spurs - Spurs in 6
Finals
Heat/Spurs - Heat in 6
Or anyone other than the Heat(7), Thunder(2), or Bulls(2). This season seems pretty top heavy. It doesn't seem to be quite as wide open as last year was (well, the west anyway. The east was top heavy last year too).
Fisher is looking better and better by the day.
Tier one:
Miami
OKC
San Antonio
Bulls
Tier two:
Grizz
Celtics
Lakers
It's possible I'm sleeping on the Pacers or Clippers as tier two contenders, but that seems to be about it. What do others think?
Edit: Whoops, split that up wrong. Bulls are clearly tier one, unless Derrick Rose's groin/back/whatever tanks them.
Miami
OKC
San Antonio
Tier two:
Bulls
Grizz
Celtics
Lakers
I think the Bulls belong in Tier 1. I like the idea of the Clippers being in tier 2, but VDN. I don't trust the Pacers to be actual contenders yet.
So, I'd go:
MIA
OKC
SA
CHI
gap
LAL
BOS
MEM
I don't feel confident at all of the order of those teams within group, just the groupings. I'd be pretty surprised if a team from Tier 1 didn't win, but I'd be flat out shocked if a team not listed did.
Recent history has me thinking otherwise. I'd have had the 2009 Magic, 2010 Celtics and 2011 Mavs as "Tier 2" contenders entering their respective playoffs. All of those teams made the Finals; one of them won, and another was a whisker away.
Not to say that I *expect* a Tier 2 team to make the Finals - but I think counting them out is too strong as well.
That's where I am with tier 2 also. (Putting the Bulls there was a typo.) I would peg it as maybe 5% total chance that a tier 2 team wins the championship, but I can't completely rule it out.
IYO, what are the chances the Sixers win? What do you need to see from them to win - any particular area that seems like it can be the key?
It's true that I wouldn't have included any of those teams on my short list of possible champs either, but I only would've been wrong about the Mavs (almost the Celts, but not quite). I still don't consider the 2009 Magic to be a true contender. Making the Finals doesn't necessarily mean you have a serious shot at the title. IMO, in order to be a true contender you have to have a realistic chance at being able to beat any other team in the league in a series, and I don't think teams like the 1999 Knicks, 2001 Sixers, 2002-2003 Nets, 2007 Cavs, or 2009 Magic had ANY shot of winning those Finals matchups.
I suppose it's a good thing that the NBA crowns the "true champ" (i.e. the actual best team) more often than any other sport, but the flip side is that the list of playoff teams that actually have a chance is usually only 3-4 names long (again, IMO). There's only been 2 titles in the 20+ years I've been following basketball that went to a team that wouldn't have been on my "tier 1" list of 3-4 top contenders (2004 Pistons and 2011 Mavs, and as was pointed out earlier in the thread, the Pistons shouldn't have been as big a surprise as they were. All the signs were there; people - including me - just weren't paying enough attention).
But like I was last year with the Mavs, I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. I like not knowing who's going to win. Especially if it ended with a parade in downtown SLC. :)
beyond that, what i see is that andre iguodala and jrue holiday are two of the worst matchups that luol deng and derrick rose could have drawn.
i think the 2nd unit of bulls forwards could be limited in impact by the sixers' 2nd unit (hawesome and thaddeus young).
i think doug collins needs to trust evan turner more than he has this year, because turner's ability to crash the defensive glass could be the difference between a 3 point deficit and a 15 point deficit.
all of that will keep the sixers close. for them to actually win, they need to get offensive production out of iguodala and elton brand. they need those 2 to carry the first unit offense, because holiday has just not played very well, and meeks and allen are extremely limited in what they're capable of doing.
In fairness to Hollinger, no one really saw the 2010 Celtics and 2011 Mavs coming. OTOH, I think he sometimes goes too much on point differential, bench strength, and on how strong teams finish and not enough on matchups; and, well, that is the 2012 Spurs. Here he is from the piece:
We also see a little personal bias factor there; Hollinger loves him some big-market fanboy/media tweaking--one of his fave on-line activities. As I said a couple of weeks ago, I think the SA streak in getting ignored in large part because they haven't done anything in the playoffs the last two years.
Hollinger does say that he thinks SA has improved their ability to defend post-up 4s, and that will be something to watch. His other picks are very standard--Grizz in 7, Lakers in 7 but watch the Nuggets it will be a barnburner, Bulls in 5, Pacers in 4, etc.
In the semis, he picks SA to take down Memphis easily, in 5. That will be the series to watch for SA--I think MEM or LAC can give them a lot of headaches. If they do win that in 5, then Hollinger may be right.
I don't see Holiday being that bad of a matchup for Rose, unless his injuries are still affecting him. I'm not concerned with Iggy's defense on Deng - with Rip healthy Deng is more of a spot up guy and he can shoot over Iggy (and Deng might be the 4th offensive option anyway). The Sixers might need Turner to crash the glass, if the Bulls control the offensive glass the games won't be close. The 2nd units of each team have different roles, the Bulls don't count on their backup bigs to provide any offense; Hawes and Young aren't the typical back up bigs so it will be important for the Bulls' bigs to stay out of foul trouble.
Seriously? I mean, I know the Magic were underdogs and ended up losing, thus validating this narrative, but two of the first four games went to OT. The Magic were two shots away from being up 3-1 in the finals. OK, if Courtney Lee makes that layup in Game 2, we don't actually know how the rest of the series would have played out, but even so, I think it's absurd to indicate the Magic had no chance at beating the Lakers.
CHI in 5
MIA in 6 (sort of interesting)
IND in 4
BOS in 7
SA in 4
OKC in 6
LAL in 5
MEM in 7
FWIW, I'd really love to see the Clippers win, if only because it means we get to watch more Chris Paul, who is in my top five favorite active players to watch (in no order, Rondo, Lebron, Nash, and Durant are the others). No offense, Maxwn - has nothing to do with your Grizzlies. Frankly, I wish the Clips were somehow the 6 seed - we'd get Lakers/Clippers in round 1, and I wouldn't have to root against Tony Allen.
I agree - then again, the Magic have almost no chance to even reach the Conference Finals if Garnett is playing. That CSF went 7 and was tied to start the 4th quarter of the deciding game. If Garnett is available, the Celtics win that series. I guess that's my way of saying I see where you both are coming from.
Well, we're using hindsight here. The Magic played some of those games closer than I would've expected, but they still lost in 5. Maybe it was a closer 5 than I would've guessed, but still...I think people would have been very surprised if the Magic had taken that series, don't you?
Edit: And while I still think the Lakers were heavy favorites in that series and a Magic win would have shocked everyone, if you're saying the 2009 Magic don't belong on that list of the other eastern finals teams I mentioned, then I'd agree with that. They were clearly better than any of those others, who I've always thought made the finals largely by default.
Was going to pick that, too. I think they won't take NY very seriously, and could easily see it taking 6.
Mine:
Bulls/76ers - Bulls in 5
Celtics/Hawks - Bos in 5
Knicks/Heat - Heat in 6
Magic/Pacers - Pacers in 5
Bulls/Celtics - Bulls in 7
Heat/Pacers - Heat in 5
Bulls/Heat - Heat in 5
West
Jazz/Spurs - Spurs in 4
Clippers/Grizzlies - Griz in 5
Mavs/OKC - OKC in 5
Nugs/LAL - LAL in 5
Spurs/Griz- Spurs in 6
OKC/LAL - OKC in 5
OKC/Spurs - OKC in 6
Finals
Heat/Spurs - Heat in 6
Sure. The Lakers were better than Orlando; they also smoked them in Games 1 and 5 along with the OT wins. They had the better core of talent; they had HCA. You can also frame it as "The Lakers were one or two shots away from a sweep"--which is why alternative-reality rationalizations are so tiresome.
I did pick the Lakers in 7 in prior to that series; Orlando was better than people thought. Cleveland was not as good as people thought and couldn't check D12.
And yes, Garnett was out, but as Moses said at the time, if we want to start talking 2009 playoff injuries, Jameer Nelson--a better player then than now--was out as well and not at all himself in the Finals, which certainly helped the Lakers a bit and may have affected the Boston series. Maybe ORL wins in 6 over BOS with Nelson.
As I said at the time--old guys sometimes miss games. If you count on guys in their 30s, even durable ones like Garnett, Bryant and Gasol--that is part of the deal. If Kobe or Pau gets hurt in game action this week and Denver beats the Lakers, that is just an outgrowth of how the team is constructed--just as MWP's suspension is as well.
My actual picks:
East
Bulls/76ers - Bulls in 6
Celtics/Hawks - Celts in 6
Knicks/Heat - Heat in 5
Magic/Pacers - Pacers in 4
Bulls/Celtics - Bulls in 7
Heat/Pacers - Heat in 5
Bulls/Heat - Heat in 6
West
Jazz/Spurs - Spurs in 7
Clippers/Grizzlies - Grizzlies in 6
Mavs/OKC - OKC in 5
Nugs/LAL - LAL in 6
Spurs/Grizzlies - Grizzlies in 6
OKC/LAL - OKC in 7
OKC/Grizzlies - OKC in 6
Finals
Heat/OKC - Heat in 6
But I'm going to be pulling like hell for a Celtics/Spurs finals.
Your broader point about subjuntive nonsense is well taken, but suggesting the drop-off from Jameer Nelson to Jason Williams is equivalent to the drop-off from Kevin Garnett to Big Baby strikes me as a bridge too far.
Pop is a helluva coach.
OK, I'll apologize for that because it does get ridiculous, and I certainly don't mean to imply that the Lakers were lucky or didn't deserve to win or anything. I just find it ludicrous to suggest that a team that was leading or tied at the end of regulation in three of the first four games of a series had "no chance" at winning. The 2007 Cavs had (almost) no chance at beating the Spurs; the 2009 Magic were much closer.
I think people would have been very surprised if the Magic had beaten the Cavs in the ECF, too. Personally, I would have been less surprised about them beating the Lakers than I was about them beating Cleveland.
We're all just taking odds here, so we're ignoring match-ups, but looking back at 2009, we can see just how important it was. Orlando was pretty much the worst match-up for Cleveland in that postseason. If KG had been healthy, then Boston probably would have beaten Orlando in the semis, and then Cleveland would have gone up against a Boston team that didn't have the behemoth in the middle, and we would have had the Lebron-Kobe Finals that everyone expected.
D'oh! Too late to fix, so there it is.
Maybe the Magic were better than I'm giving them credit for. But I predicted them to get smoked in 5, and they did lose in 5 (though maybe the "smoked" term doesn't entirely apply). Be honest now - you all predicted the Lakers to win that series too...
Didn't mean to suggest that at all; you just read that into it on your own. The point was if you want to talk playoff what-ifs and injuries, it is better to talk about all of them, not just the ones that hit the team you like.
And, for the record, Nelson had a 20.6 PER that year and made the EC All-Star team; his backup, Rafer Alston, was at 15.6. Anthony Johnson (10.3) and Tyronn Lue (9.4) were on the team as well. Williams wasn't in the NBA that year.
Really? I wasn't very surprised at all when they beat the Cavs. I would've been much more surprised about them beating the Celts if Garnett had been healthy.
I just find it ludicrous to suggest that a team that was leading or tied at the end of regulation in three of the first four games of a series had "no chance" at winning
"No chance" might have been too strong of words. I'll re-phrase it; the Lakers should have been heavy favorites to make that a short series and they did just that.
Meh. This was my rational for not taking Utah seriously in the recent past against the Lakers, and you didn't agree with that at all.
Which series are you talking about? I don't remember posting much in NBA threads in 2009 and 2010, but I wouldn't have given the Jazz much chance of beating the Lakers in either of those series. If we were making predictions, I think I would've guessed the Jazz to lose in 5 both times. Now, I think they were just as good or better than some teams that DID put up a good fight against LAL - 2009 Rockets and Nuggs, 2010 Thunder and Suns - but the Lakers were just an absolute nightmare matchup for the Jazz. Our bigs - Boozer and Okur - were never good defenders, and no other team had the front line (Gasol, Bynum, Odom) to exploit that weakness quite to the degree that LA did.
That was a strange year, when the stat community was totally convinced of the greatness of Rafer Alston.
SA in 6
OKC in 5
LAL in 7
MEM in 7
CHI in 5
MIA in 6
IND in 4
BOS in 5
SA in 7
OKC in 6
CHi in 5
MIA in 6
OKC in 6
MIA in 6
MIA in 7
I don't like my picks. wish i was picking sa.
Fair. I just think Nelson has ridden a single season of hot-shooting into more of a reputation than he deserves. It's totally plausible that having one more knockdown 3-point shooter would have broken open some games and changed the tenor of the series; I just don't think it would have been too likely, for reasons having as much to do with him as the Celtics.
Mainly, though, my argument there boils down to "you used a pretty weak hypothetical to argue that the form most hypotheticals take is weak", which, I mean, is not very useful.
Predictions are fun, but I have always agreed with something Bill James said many years ago: "I think predictions are basically an ego thing that have little to do with knowledge or understanding."
As I have noted many times since I think it is amusing: the single best prediction on this thread (which will turn three years old on May 4--is it toilet-trained yet?) was during the 2009 playoffs, when Hutcheson, who is neither a thread regular nor a hardcore NBA fan, showed up and flat-out-no-hedging-at-all said that Orlando was going to take down Cleveland in the 2009 ECF, mostly due to matchups/Howard. I would say that almost every other guy on the thread and about 85-90% of the media had CLE taking that series and was gearing up for Kobe v. LeBron on the big stage.
Exactly. And IMO, great teams tend to drop good teams into "non-contender" status. I think I just have a more narrow definition of "contender" than most people. Like I mentioned earlier, my definition would only include teams that it wouldn't surprise me if they won it all. The 2009 Magic were very good - but it would have surprised me a lot if they had beaten the Lakers, so they weren't contenders in my mind. I don't think I'm insulting them to say that; it's just how I define things.
In 1996, for example, I wouldn't have considered anyone other than the Bulls to be contenders, since no one else had a realistic shot at beating them, not even the 64 win Sonics or my 55 win Jazz, both of whom would've been contenders in most other seasons. But in that year, the Bulls were taking home the title, period. It would have been a major, MAJOR upset if anyone else did instead.
Yup, and Nike.
Hypotheticals in sports (and in life, probably, although I think there they can be used to evaluate life choices sometimes) in general are "not very useful." Mostly they are used by fans of teams that lost to make themselves feel better about the fact that their team lost. Many Boston fans are always going to be pissed off about the facts that the 2008 team could not (as yet, anyway) win it again and about the fact that the Bryant/Gasol Lakers team won twice and their team won once. The Garnett and Perkins injuries provide a clear narrative hook on which to hang those feelings.
Sure, it is POSSIBLE Boston would have repeated or threepeated without those injuries. And it is also very possible that they wouldn't have. So I don't see the whole conversation as being "useful." That's not a reason not to have the conversation, of course.
If the Lakers had lost Game 7 in 2010, Lakers fans would do the same thing with 2008, (as well as 2010) since the Lakers played the 2008 Finals without Bynum. Some Lakers fans do it anyway--the narrative there goes that the Lakers might have been up 3-2 rather than down 3-2 going back to Boston with Bynum, which means a Game 7, and well, we would have had Kobe in Game 7, so...
But they're wrong. Boston was just a better team than the Lakers that year, with or without Bynum, and of course Bynum is not exactly AC Green in terms of his health record. It is just a way for Lakers fans to feel better about the Game 6 blowout.
I think what-ifs can be fun--I enjoyed that chapter in TBOB. I also think they can be useful in terms of providing historical context sometimes, trying to decide stuff like which team was "better" in a Platonic sense. That has been done a lot, and was just done again here a few pages ago, with the 1980s Lakers and Celtics. And, once the current iterations of those teams break up, people will start doing it again. I am sure that, "What if Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins had been healthy in the 2009 and 2010 NBA Playoffs?" will be in the What-If Chapter of the 2017 edition of TBOB.
So, if recent history is an indicator, it probably won't be SA and CHI.
I am staying with my preseason pick, MIA v. OKC.
Which is a large part of why they keep coming up; if you buy the idea that a team is better in a Platonic sense than its recent record, you get to make predictions out of line with consensus about that team going forward. It's analysis that's as enticing as it is unscientific, not being falsifiable.
Yeah, I've noticed too that the majority of the teams with the most regular season wins in the last decade haven't even made the Finals, let alone taken home the title - 2002 Kings, 2004 Pacers, 2005 Suns, 2006 Pistons and Spurs, 2007 Mavs and Suns, 2009 and 2010 Cavs, 2011 Bulls and Spurs - all won at least 61 games, and all were watching the Finals on TV. The only teams from that span to win that many games and actually make it were the 2008 Celtics and 2009 Lakers. Seems teams have a better shot when they win 50-60 games rather than 60+ plus for some reason.
You mean there were more Jazz fans posting here other than me and Tom Cervo and you drove them off? What the hell? :)
Nah, you're not thinking it all the way through. The vast majority of teams that win 50-60 games don't make the finals either. There's just more of them, so the odds that one of them makes it is better than the odds that one specific 60+ win juggernaut makes it. I'd still guess that the odds a team goes to the finals if they are a 60+ win team are better than the odds a team does if they are in the 50-60 range.
that seems like a great move for 97.5, since it'll actually give me good reason to listen to them for the first time in about 5 years, but there's some risk in it for the sixers, since there's the potential that they'll be whitewashed from the coverage on 94.1, which is really the dominant station in town.
No worries, Joe, everyone's got character flaws.
It seems to me that this thread has been lacking in irrational confidence fanboy optimism since the sixers started to slide. That plus the fact that several of you have already got the Grizzlies in the conference finals means I think I'm going to have to go above and beyond.
SAS in 5
OKC in 6
LAL in 7
MEM in 6
CHI in 6
MIA in 5
IND in 4
BOS in 7
MEM in 6
OKC in 7
CHI in 6
MIA in 5
MEM in 7
MIA in 7
MEM in 7
I very much hope they make a deep run this year, because I have got tickets to all the home games. For a couple of reasons, that is unlikely to work out in the next few years, so now would be the time for me.
And me.
I thought hard about putting the C's through to the Larry O'Brian, but I guess I just don't have the JET kind of faith necessary to call that out. I've already gotten burned on my Rondo MVP prediction...
HaterBoys are the guys who fixate on trashing Kobe in any way they can while simultaneously complaining about irrational Laker Fanboys--the Abbott thing, IOW. Haters are just regular guys who hate the Lakers. There are also KobeHaters, a sub-category all their own.
___
In part, I kind of want to see Miami win it so all the knuckleheads will have to get off James' shitt, at least to an extent. OTOH, the rubbernecker/sports drama junkie in me sort of wants to gape at the fallout of another Miami defeat. I guess that is kind of crappy on my part, but it is what it is.
Also, the team I would like to see really do something, other than the Lakers of course, is Memphis, partly for petty reasons (Gasol deal) and partly because I like them and have followed them on League Pass all year. If Paul had landed on the Clippers absent the Veto, I would be pro-Clippers as well. Now I want to see them lose simply due to the Stern factor. That is of course not about Paul himself (nor the Clippers, really) in any way.
Well, yeah. I didn't mean that last line literally. It just struck me as a little odd that regular season records have meant so little in the last decade as far as crowning champs goes.
Well, speak up, brotha! :)
If it helps, you're free to take my first prediction in 1626 seriously if you want. :)
Here's how I see the playoffs:
Tier 1:
Heat
Tier 2:
Bulls, Thunder, Spurs
Tier 3:
Lakers, Mavs, Pacers
I've been wrong about LeBron's team each of the last four years, though, so you know. I don't think the Celtics are any kind of contender. I think people are writing off the Mavs and Pacers too easily and slightly overrating the Grizzlies (sorry, Maxwn, not aimed at you).
I think it's interesting that no one has the Pacers coming out of the East. If we were doing a competition, I'd re-pick the Pacers, just because no one else has them. I could see them making a surprise finals appearance.
Do we have the most fans of any small market team in this thread then?
Didn't see it mentioned, but the Warriors won the coin flip, so the Jazz likely won't get their pick this year. However, they still have two more chances at the Warriors' 1st round pick: 1-7 protected again next year and 1-6 the following year. After that it turns into two 2nd round picks. I thought it turned into 2nd round picks after this year, so I feel a lot better about it.
Hey, I know I'm a charming, likeable guy and all, but nobody's got to apologize to me about what they think about the Grizzlies. It's just basketball.
Anyway, tshipman, I expected you to be skeptical, I feel like you've been underrating them for two years, so I'm not surprised you feel that way now. If they want to be taken seriously as a contender, then they've got to make a deep run. I will say, I don't see much reason to think any of the teams in your third tier of contenders are really any better than the Grizzlies. Or the Clippers either for that matter.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main